( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original defendant-tenant who has questioned the legality and validity of eviction decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 7 of 1978 on 29-4-1981 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1981 by resorting to the provisions of Sec. 29 (2) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act ). The respondent is the original-plaintiff who is the owner of the suit property situated in Khambhalia and the petitioner original-defendant is the tenant in respect of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs. 3. 00 as per the English Calendar month. The parties are hereinafter referred to as landlord and tenant for the sake of convenience and brevity.

( 2 ) THE landlord served the defendant-tenant with a notice on the ground of non-payment of rent and non-user of the demise premises. The notice was not replied nor complied. Therefore, the suit was filed for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under Sec. 12 (3) (a) and on the ground of non-user under Sec. 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 3 ) THE defendant-tenant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement ex. 20. It was inter alia contended that she is ready and willing to pay the rent and that on account of her ill-health, she was staying at Bombay and therefore, there was reasonable cause for not residing in the demise premises.

( 4 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court settled the issues at Ex. 21. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the trial Court found that the defendant-tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months and she is not ready and willing to pay the rent. The trial Court also found that the suit premises are not used as residence for many years and therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted. The trial Court, therefore, passed ejectment decree on both the grounds on 29-4-1981. The tenant carried the matter in appeal before District court at Jamnagar challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree of the trial Court. She lost in appeal also. Hence this revision.

( 5 ) IN fact, the powers of this Court in a revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay rent Act are very much circumscribed. The main anxiety of the Court in such a case is to see as to whether the impugned judgment and decree rendered is according to law or not. Having examined the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a fit case for interference in revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent act.

( 6 ) THE following facts are not disputed. Suit notice Ex. 59 was received by the tenant wherein rent was demanded from 1-1-1975 to 30-9-1977. Thus, demand was made for 33 months rent at the rate of Rs. 3. 00 per month. An amount of Rs. 99. 00 was demanded in the notice under Sec. 12 (2) which was received by the tenant on 23rd August, 1977. It is an admitted fact that the notice was not replied. It is also an admitted position that dispute of standard rent was not raised within one month thereafter.

( 7 ) IT is a settled proposition of law that the tenant is liable for ejectment under Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act if the following requirements are established : (1) That the rent is payable by month; (2) Amount of the standard rent and permitted increases is not disputed; (3) Standard rent or permitted increases are unpaid for six months or more; (4) That the tenant has received notice under Sec. 12 (2); and (5) Tenant has neglected to pay the standard rent and permitted increases for such period within a period of one month after receipt of the notice under Sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The aforesaid requirements are not disputed. With the result, the tenant is liable for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent under Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the bombay Rent Act. The Courts below have rightly passed decree for ejectment under sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act against the petitioner-