( 1 ) THIS civil revision application has been filed by the original defendant - tenant challenging the decree of eviction passed by the appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 106/78.

( 2 ) DETAIL facts leading to this civil revision application are as under. :

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the defendant of Civil Suit No. 191/73. The said suit was filed by the landlord, namely, Bhagwandas Kalichanddas Gupta who died during the pendency of this civil revision application and his heirs are brought on the record of this civil revision application. The case of the landlord in the said suit was that, he is the original owner of the suit property by purchasing the same from one Dashrathlal Jethalal by registered document dated 12. 11. 1970. The suit property is situated in Patan Town and the portion of the suit property was given on lease by the original landlord Dashrathlal Jethalal on 13. 5. 1970 at the rate of Rs. 13/per month. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to vacate the suit premises within six months after the plaintiff purchased the suit property after executing a fresh rent note in favour of the present plaintiff on 12. 11. 1970. The defendant, however, did not pay the rent since 12. 10. 1971. It is also the say of the plaintiff that, he required the suit premises for his bonafide personal use. Therefore, after terminating the tenancy of the defendant by giving the registered notice dated 16. 11. 1972 the present suit was filed for getting the decree for possession as well as for the arrears of rent from 11. 10. 1971 at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per month.

( 4 ) THE defendant appeared in the suit by filing the written statement at Exh. 9. It was pointed out by the tenant in his written statement that, since the plaintiff-landlord has purchased the suit property after 1. 1. 1964, the suit for bonafide requirement is not maintainable as per the law. It was pointed out in the written statement that, he is in possession of the suit property as a tenant since long and he was paying Rs. 13. 00 as rent to the original landlord - Dashrathlal. He also contended that the standard rent of the suit property is Rs. 9. 00 per month only. He also denied that, he was in the arrears of rent from 12. 10. 1979 as he had sent various money orders, but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. Ultimately he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 5 ) THE learned trial court framed various issues from the pleadings of the parties at Exh. 20. The learned trial court found that, since the plaintiff had purchased the suit property after 1. 1. 1964, the suit for bonafide requirement was not maintainable. The learned trial court found that, Rs. 20. 00 is the standard rent. The learned trial court also found that the defendant was not in arrears for more than six months. The trial court accordingly dismissed the suit for possession and decree for Rs. 430. 00 was passed towards the arrears of rent.

( 6 ) THE aforesaid decree of the trial court was challenged by the unsuccessful landlord by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 106/78. So far as the ground about nonuser of the suit property is concerned, the appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court in the said suit to the effect that the tenant was using the suit premises and that there was no substance in the ground of nonuser. The appellate court found in para 20 of its judgment that the plaintiff has hopelessly failed to bring his case under section 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act. The main point which was seriously argued before the appellate court by the landlord was regarding the nonpayment of the rent by the tenant. The appellate court found that the tenant had not sent the rent within one month from the receipt of the suit notice to the landlord, and that, therefore, the decree for eviction under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act is required to be passed. Alternatively, it was found that, assuming that the case would fall under section 12 (3) (b)