( 1 ) THIS revision application raises an interesting question of law becoming more interesting by the peculiar facts of this case. This revision application has been brought of this Court. Under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act (she Act for short ).

( 2 ) IN order to comprehend fully the controversy thai has been raised in this revision application the facts required to he noted fully. The opponent herein is the plaintiff of a rent Suit No. 2414 of 1975 which was initially registered as the Regular Civil Suit No. 904 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Baroda but it came to be transferred to the; Small Causes Court at Baroda itself on that court being established in the year 1975. The landlord had filed the said suit for possession of the rented premises situated at Baroda. The landlords case in the plaint was that the defendant No. 1 Usha Ramchandra Kulkarni the wife of the defendant no. 2 Ramchandra Nineji Kulkarni was his tenant that she was in arrears of rent right from 1st of April 1972 that despite the demand notice under sec. 12 (2) of the Act she had not paid any rent and that the defendant no. 2 her husband claimed to be the tenant and had eve