( 1 ) PETITIONER herein is the original defendant and the tenant of the suit premises. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff and the landlord of the suit premises. They are referred to in this judgment as the plaintiff and the defendant.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 65 of 1977 in the Court of Civil judge (SD) at Deesa for obtaining possession of the suit premises consisting of a shop situated at New Deesa on the ground that the defendant was a tenant in arrears of rent for a period of more than 6 months. It was the plaintiffs case that rent of rs. 50 per month plus electricity charges of Rs. 5 per month was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and it fell due from Ashadh Sud 1 of S. Y. 2029. A total sum of Rs. 2,450 by way of rent and Rs. 245 by way of electric charges, in all Rs. 2,695 remained due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff resulting into the plaintiff serving a demand notice dated 23rd May 1977. The defendant did not tender the rent and, therefore, the plaintiff had to file the suit as aforesaid. The defence of the defendant was that the plaintiff was recovering rent at Rs. 60 per month from 1-8-1973 and from 1-12-1975 the plaintiff started recovering rent at the rate of Rs. 70 per month. According to him he had paid up the rent and electricity burning charges and nothing was due from him. He contended that the rent could have been recovered according to Gregorian calendar and not Samvat calendar. He gave reply dated 4th June 1977 to the plaintiffs notice. The learned Trial Judge upon hearing of the matter came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was collecting rent as alleged by the defendant holding that notice was neither legal nor valid and that plaintiff was not entitled to get the rent as claimed in the suit. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 5th May 1979 with no order as to costs. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1979 in the Court of learned District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur who by his judgment and decree dated 26th June 1981 allowed the appeal and set aside the trial courts judgment and decree dismissing the suit and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises and pay the arrears of rent in the sum of Rs. 2,640 besides mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50 per month plus Rs. 5 per month being electricity charges from the date of the suit till realisation. It is this last mentioned decision, which is the subject-matter of this Revision Application by virtue of Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act ).

( 3 ) MR. A. R. Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant (petitioner herein) has, after going through the evidence, fairly submitted that the rent fell due from Samvat Year 2029 Ashad Sud 1. He, however, canvassed the following points of law : i. According to the submission of Mr. Majmudar, the suit notice is not valid under Sec. 12 (2) of the Rent Act. In the first place, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bapulal Kalidas v. Bai Kashiben, reported in XVIII (1977) GLR 77. There can be no dispute with regard to the proposition that a vague notice requiring the tenant to pay all the arrears of rent and permitted increases, without indicating the actual amount due on that account or the point of time from which the rent and permitted increases at a specified rate are, according to the landlord, in arrears, would afford no real opportunity to the tenant to avail of the facility or benefit of making payment of the arrears due by him before he is sued in ejectment. There can also be no doubt with regard to the proposition that the demand of standard rent and permitted increases in a suit under Sec. 12 (2) must be a precise demand, i. e. , to say, one that sets out with certainty what according to the landlord is due by the tenant on that a