( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner (defendant-tenant) against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Rajkot in Civil Appeal No 49 of 1966 which confirmed the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 488 of 1964 of the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Rajkot.

( 2 ) MR. Suresh M. Shah appearing for the petitioner urged that the Courts below had committed an error of law in passing the decree for eviction. It is urged by him that the consequence of non-compliance with the order passed in the Miscellaneous application at the most would entail the dismissal of that application for fixing the standard rent. Submission is that in the consequence referred to in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 11 of the Act a tenant who has been given notice in regard to arrears of rent for a period over six months as contemplated by sec. 12 (2) of the Act is entitled to protection even though he has committed such a default if he satisfies the conditions of sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act if the case does not fall under sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act. Admittedly in the instant case there was a dispute between the parties regarding the standard rent and the tenant had filed an application for fixation of the standard rent under sec. 11 of the Act prior to the expiry of the period of one month after the receipt of the notice. It is therefore an admitted position that the present case does not fall within sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act. Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act material for our purposes reads:-IN any other case no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other dates as the Court may fix the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court. Explanation to sec. 12 of the Act reads:-IN any case where there is a dispute as to the amount of standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under this Act the tenant shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such amount if before the expiry of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-sec. (2) he makes an application to the Court under subsec. (3) of sec. 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by the Court. Submission made by Mr. Shah is that this explanation lays down a rule of evidence. If the petitioner has been able to show that she has satisfied the conditions referred to in this explanation there would be conclusive presumption that the tenant is ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent at the date of the decree for eviction. That by itself submitted Mr. Shah would not justify the Court to hold that this readiness and willingness to pay the rent due cannot be proved by other modes. Submission made by Mr. Shah is that in case this petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of this explanations if the Court finds that she has not complied with the order passed in the aforesaid miscellaneous application she is still entitled to claim protection independently of it in view of the provisions of sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. That section provides an additional opportunity to the tenant to claim protection if the tenant satisfies the conditions referred to therein. It is further submitted that the protection given by the Legislature to the tenant by the provisions of sec. 12 (3) of the Act would be illusory if the Court does not fix any other rate directing the tenant to pay the standard rent and permitted increases then due if the tenant has not paid or tendered such rent on the first day of the hearing of the suit. It is urged by him that till the Court determines the standard rent fixing of such dates would be ineffectual. Such dates could be fixed only after the standard rent i