( 1 ) THE petitioner - tenant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act by this civil revision application. The trial court had dismissed the suit of the original plaintiff, that is, the present petitioner herein for getting the decree for possession on the ground of nonpayment of rent as well as for nonuser of the suit premises and in appeal the appellate court decreed the suit on the ground of nonpayment of rent by the defendant - tenant and that is how the tenant has come in this civil revision application.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff had instituted the civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 86/78. The suit property which is a shop, situated in Nanalal Market of Jawahar Chowk in Surendranagar Town. The defendant is the tenant of the said shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 10. 00 and that he was in arrears of rent from 19. 3. 1969 to 19. 1. 1977 and that the arrears come to Rs. 550. 00. The plaintiff, therefore, gave the demand notice asking the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and also to hand over the possession as according to the plaintiff the tenant was not using the suit property since last six years. Ultimately, the suit for eviction was filed as the defendant did not comply with the suit notice.

( 3 ) ). The defendant appeared in the suit by filing the written statement at Exh. 12. He denied that, he was in arrears of rent. According to him, the landlord was not accepting the rent and that he is also not giving the credit of the payment which he has already made to him. It was also stated in the written statement that the suit notice was served at the false address, and therefore, he had no opportunity to reply the suit notice. It was also denied that, he was in arrears of the rent. Other grounds of nonuser as well as subletting of the suit premises as alleged in the plaint were also denied by the defendant.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge framed various issues at Exh. 14 and thereafter, after recording the evidence of the parties and after hearing the arguments of the learned advocates for the parties, dismissed the suit for possession. The trial court was of the opinion that the defendant was ready and willing to pay the rent and adverse inference was drawn against the plaintiff for not producing his account books. The trial court believed that the defendant had paid Rs. 600. 00 to the plaintiff, and therefore, he was not in arrears of the rent. The case of subletting was also not believed by the trial court and accordingly the suit was dismissed in toto.

( 5 ) ). The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 109/79 before the appellate court. The said appeal was heard by the Assistant Judge, Surendranagar. The appellate court was of the opinion that the defendant - tenant was in arrears of the rent for more than six months and he had not paid the rent within one month after receiving the suit notice. The appellate court, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the ground of nonpayment of the rent.

( 6 ) THE aforesaid decree of the appellate court is impugned in this civil revision application at the instance of the petitioner herein.

( 7 ) ). At the time of hearing of this civil revision application, Mr. Raval learned advocate for the petitioner argued that, when two views are possible regarding the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord, the view taken by the trial court should have normally been accepted by the appellate court and that the appellate court should not have interfered with the finding of fact given by the trial court in so far as the say of the tenant that he had gone to the landlord for the payment of the rent is concerned.

( 8 ) MR. RAVAL further submitted that, in any case, the landlord had not produced any books of account, counter foil of the rent receipt to show whether the tenant has really paid the rent or not, and therefore, the oral say of the defendant that he had paid the en