D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short, the Act), against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the deceased landlord Abdul Aziz filed a suit for eviction of the revisionist on the grounds that he was tenant of the demised premises on monthly rent of Rs. 35=00 and he was in arrears of rent for eight months from 1-2-1975 to 3-9-1975, which he failed to pay within a month of service of notice of demand.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the tenant, raising dispute of standard rent and also pleading payment of rent and alleging that he was not in arrears of rent exceeding six months and that he was ready and willing to pay the rent.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the standard rent was the agreed rent of Rs. 35=00 per month. It was further found by the trial Court that the tenant was in arrears of rent exceeding six months. The plea of payment of rent or the tender of rent was disbelieved by the trial Court. The trial Court also found that the tenant was not entitled to protection of sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. With these findings, the suit was decreed.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved, the tenant/revisionist filed an appeal which was also dismissed. It is, therefore, this revision against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Gaurang H. Bhatt and learned counsel for the respondent Shri MS Shah have been heard and the judgments and decrees of the two courts below have been examined.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that this case is not covered by sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act and that since the entire amount was paid in the trial Court, as well as, in the appellate Court, he was entitled to relief against eviction under sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Act.

( 8 ) SHRI Shah, contended that the suit was filed under sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act, and in case it is found that the ingredients of this section were fulfilled and established by the landlord then the courts below had no option but, to decree the suit for eviction. There can not be any dispute about this contention of Shri Shah. However, it has to be seen, whether the conditions of sec. 12 (3) (a) are actually established by the landlord. Since the two courts below have concurrently found that ingredients of sec. 12 (3) (a) are established, there remains little scope for interference in this revision. However, interference is possible only when it is found that the findings recorded by the two courts below, no matter concurrent, are illegal or perverse.

( 9 ) SO far as the ingredients of sec. 12 (3) (a) are concerned, there are four essential requirements to be established by the landlord before he can get a decree for eviction of a tenant. The first is that, the rent should be payable monthly. Secondly, there should not be any dispute regarding amount of standard rent or permitted increases of rent, if any. Thirdly, the arrears of rent should exceed six months. Lastly, the tenant fails to pay the arrears of rent exceeding six months within a period of one month after service of notice of demand under sec. 12 (2) of the Act.

( 10 ) SEC. 12 (3) (B) will apply only to those cases where sec. 12 (3) (a) is not applicable. If, however, sec. 12 (3) (a) is applicable, decree of eviction has to be passed and the protection available to the tenant under sec. 12 (3) (b) will be of no consequence.

( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that it was not a case where the rent was payable monthly. According to him, the educational cess and municipal tax were also included in the amount of rent. Moreover, the educational cess and municipal tax since are not payable monthly but annually, it can not be said that the rent was payable monthly. As against this, Shri Shah has rightly contended that it was not a case of the tenant/revisionist, either in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document