( 1 ) PRESENT Revision Application has been filed by the original defendant of Rent Suit No. 86 of 1980. The respondent herein was the original plaintiff of the said suit and he filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner tenant in the Court of Small Causes at Rajkot on the ground that the defendant is a tenant in arrears of rent for more than 6 months i. e. , from 1-6-1970. The premises was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. However, he has not paid the rent for 18 months, and therefore, he was served with a demand notice under Sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent act, still he did not pay the said, rent. Ultimately, therefore, a suit was filed for getting a decree for possession. It was also stated in the suit that the defendant has made permanent construction in the suit premises in contravention of the terms of tenancy. Possession was also demanded on the ground of bona fide requirement of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement at Exh. 14. It was contended in the written statement that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was contended that Rs. 100/- is not the standard rent. He also denied other grounds which were pleaded in the plaint for the purpose of getting the decree. On all these grounds, the defendant prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE trial Court framed various issues at Exh. 26. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. The trial Court fixed the standard rent of the suit premises at Rs. 651- plus taxes. The trial Court found that the defendant was in arrears of rent. The trial Court also found that he was ready and willing to pay the rent. The other grounds were not pressed before the trial Court and ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and fixed the standard rent of the suit premises at Rs. 65/- p. m. , plus taxes.

( 4 ) THE respondent plaintiff ultimately filed Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1981 before the District Court, Rajkot. The Appellate Court partly allowed the said appeal. Present petitioner who was respondent in the said appeal had also filed cross-objections so far as the finding about standard rent was concerned. According to the tenant the standard rent should not have been fixed at Rs. 65/- p. m. The appeal was heard by the learned Appellate Judge who allowed the appeal partly. The learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal insofar as the prayer for possession was concerned by confirming the decree of the trial Court. However, the learned Appellate Judge set aside the finding of the trial Court regarding fixation of standard rent at the rate of Rs. 65/- p. m. , and the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 100/- inclusive of all taxes and accordingly the appeal was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Judge. The tenant was given 3 months time to pay up aforesaid arrears of rent. The original defendant tenant has challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Appellate Judge fixing standard rent by way of this revision application. So far as the prayer for possession is concerned said question has become final. Therefore, the only dispute which is required to be considered in this revision application is fixing of standard rent by the learned Appellate Judge. So far as the decision of the learned Appellate Judge about the standard rent is concerned, the learned appellate Judge has given very cogent reasons for fixing Rs. 100/- as standard rent. Since the appeal before the learned Appellate Judge was a composite appeal on both the questions i. e. , for possession as well as for standard rent, the learned Appellate Judge decided the matter of standard rent also in the appeal. Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act which is regarding preferring of an appeal. Section 29 reads as under :"29. Ap