( 1 ) THIS litigation has had a checkered history and it is necessary to Set out briefly the relevant facts leading upto the filing of this petition. A recapitulation of these facts is necessary for the purpose of appreciating the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents against the maintainability of the petition. The dispute in the petition relates to two rooms on the ground floor of a building known as Himmat Nivas situate in Ahmedabad. The premises were let out by the original owner to the petitioner at a monthly rent which according to the petitioner was Rs. 50 per month inclusive of municipal taxes and electricity charges. The rent according to the respondents however was Rs. 50 per month plus municipal taxes plus Rs. 5 in respect of electricity charges. We shall presently refer to this dispute about the rent but in the meantime it Day be pointed out that the original landlords sold the premises to the first respondent on 2nd January 1956 and the first respondent accordingly become the landlord of the premises. The petitioner admittedly fell in arrears of rent from 1st April 1956 and the first respondent therefore gave a notice dated 20 February 1957 to the petitioner under sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) demanding arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 50 pet month plus municipal taxes plus Rs. 5 per month in respect of electricity charges. The petitioner did not give any reply to the notice nor did he comply with the requisitions contained in the notice. The first respondent therefore filed a suit against the petitioner on 1st April 1957 seeking to recover possession of the premises from the petitioner. Those were three grounds on which possession was sought but out of them only one survives for consideration and that is the ground based on arrears of rent. The petitioner in his written statement did not dispute that he was in arrears of rent at the date of the institution of the suit but his contention was that the agreed rent was Rs. 50 per month inclusive of municipal taxes and electricity charges and he was always ready and willing to pay the same to the first respondent but the first respondent wrongly demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month plus municipal taxes plus Rs. 5 per month in respect of electricity charges. The dispute between the parties therefore was as to what was agreed rent of the premises and at that stage there was no dispute in regard to the standard rent. During the pendency of the suit the premises were sold to the second respondent on 2nd August 1959 and the second respondent was accordingly joined as a co-plaintiff on 28th August 1959. The petitioner thereafter on 1st July 1960 made an application for leave to amend the written statement by introducing a dispute as to the standard rent and the amendment was allowed by the learned trial Judge. The suit was thereafter heard and by judgment dated 19th July 1960 the learned trial Judge rejected the respondent claim to recover possession of the premises from the petitioner. The learned trial Judge held that the standard rent was Rs. 50 per month inclusive of municipal taxes and electricity charges and since the amount of Rs. 2 890 deposited by the petitioner in Court during the pendency of the suit was more than sufficient to cover the arrears of rent at the rate so determined the learned trial Judge held that se petitioner was entitled to the protection of sec. 12 (3) (b ). The respondents being aggrieved by this decision preferred an appeal to the District Court and the appeal was transferred to the City Civil Court on the latter Court coming into existence. The learned Principal Judge on a review of the evidence came to the conclusion that the standard rent was Rs. 50 per month plus municipal taxes plus Rs. 5 per month in respect of electricity charges and the determination of the standard rent made by the trial Court