( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original defendant against whom the respondent had filed the suit being H. R. P. Suit No. 17/75 in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The case of the landlord in the said suit was that, he is the owner of the suit premises which is situated at Mirzapur Road, Ahmedabad. That the defendant No. 2 is carrying his tailoring business in the name of the defendant No. 1. That premises in question was hired by the defendant No. 2 which is one room on the second floor of the suit building with the monthly rent of Rs. 200. 00 and taxes to be paid by the tenant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1. 3. 1974 and he has not paid the same inspite of the demand. He has also stated in the plaint that the tenant has changed the use of the premises and that the conduct of the defendant amounts to nuisance. Therefore, the suit was filed on the aforesaid grounds with the prayer for getting the decree for possession.

( 2 ) THE defendant appeared in the suit by filing the written statement at Exh. 11. It was alleged that, contractual rent of Rs. 200. 00 is excessive. It was also stated by the defendant that, he was ready and willing to pay the rent and other grounds were also denied by him, that is, change of user and nuisance.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge framed various issues at Exh. 53 and thereafter, after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent and the standard rent of the suit premises was Rs. 500. 00 per month, plus taxes. Ultimately, on the ground of arrears of rent, the trial court passed the decree under section 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The aforesaid decree of the trial court was challenged by the tenant before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by way of Civil Appeal No. 150/79. The Appellate Bench by its order dated 2. 11. 1982 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the decree of the trial court. The present revision application has been filed by the defendant against the order of the Appellate Bench by which his appeal was dismissed.

( 4 ) AT the time of hearing of this revision application, it was argued by Mr. P. V. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner that, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. It was argued by him that the defendant had already deposited Rs. 900. 00 with the landlord at the time of executing the rent note, and therefore, the aforesaid amount is required to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent, if, that amount amount is to be considered, then the tenant was not in arrears of rent.

( 5 ) IT was next argued by him that, even though the tenant had paid the taxes in the past, the landlord had not remitted the same to the local authority, and therefore, there was no question on his part to pay regularly the amount of taxes during the pendency of the suit and the appeal.

( 6 ) IT was further argued that the tenant had taken the dispute of standard rent in the written statement, and therefore, the court should have fixed an appropriate standard rent.

( 7 ) IT was lastly argued that the amount of taxes was not claimed in the suit by the plaintiff, and therefore, it was not necessary for him to deposit the amount of taxes regularly, and therefore, what is required to be considered is whether the amount of rent was regularly deposited before the court below or not.

( 8 ) SO far as the first point regarding adjustment of deposit of Rs. 900. 00 is concerned, the said deposit as per the agreement was required to be returned back at the time of handing over the possession. The question which requires consideration is, whether the aforesaid amount of Rs. 900. 00 which the tenant had paid to the landlord towards the deposit can be adjusted towards the arrears of rent or not. If, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 900. 00 is considered towards arrears, then naturally,