JUDGMENT :

A.S. GADKARI, J.

1. Petitioners, legal heirs of Mr. Purushottam D. Rajadne, landlord/original plaintiff, in R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986, have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.1998 passed in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1994 preferred by the original defendant/respondent herein, allowing the said appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.1994 passed in R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986. By the said Judgment and Order dated 10.2.1994, the trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Rent Act). In an appeal preferred by the Respondent/defendant/tenant the appellate Court while allowing the said appeal, set aside the Judgment and Order passed by the trial court dated 10.2.1994 and dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff.

2. Heard Mr. Drupad Patil learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. I.M. Khairdi, learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused entire record.

3. Record reveals that, the petitioner/landlord had filed R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986 in the Court Civil Judge Junior Division, Barshi, at Barshi, District Solapur, for possession of suit property, description of which is more specifically mentioned in Para No. 1 of the plaint and for recovery of rent on the ground of default, permanent alteration and nuisance. The trial Court decreed the said suit only on the ground that, the petitioner was entitled to recover possession from respondent under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, as according to trial Court, respondent did not pay contractual rent despite receipt of notice from the petitioner and had also not deposited rent in the Court on the first date of hearing. The trial Court did not accept other grounds pleaded by the petitioner for eviction of respondent.

4. In an appeal preferred by respondent, the appellate Court by its Judgment and Order dated 31.8.1998 reversed the findings, so also Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that, the trial Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, by ignoring the date of amendment to the Bombay Rent Act in the year 1987 i.e. Maharashtra Amendment Act 18 of 1987 and has wrongly held that, the respondent was defaulter in payment of rent for period of six months or more after issuance of notice.

5. A minute perusal of the record of present case clearly indicates that, the relation between petitioner as landlord and respondent as tenant is not disputed. Petitioner had issued notice for recovery of rent and termination of tenancy on 19.11.1985 (Exh.42) and had demanded Rs. 910 as arrears of rent + Rs. 30/- towards fees of Advocate. Respondent thereafter sent Money Order to the petitioner on 16.12.1985 and as per the record, original petitioner refused to accept the same. Respondent also filed Misc. Application No. 16 of 1986, on 20.12.1985, for fixing standard rent of the suit premises @ Rs. 4 per month, as contemplated under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act. The original plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986 on 10.1.1986. These are the basic admitted facts on record.

6. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the standard rent of the suit premises was Rs. 5/- p.m. That, after issuance of notice dated 19.11.1985, the respondent did not pay the rent and had filed an application for fixing standard rent as contemplated under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act on 20.12.1985 disputing the standard rent and claiming Rs. 4/- p.m. as standard rent for the suit premises. He submitted that, the respondent did not deposit standard rent on the first date of hearing before the trial court and therefore Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act is squarely applicable to the present case. As the respondent had raised dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or pe