( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed by the present applicant who is the original plaintiff no. 1. He and the present opponent no. 1 Rajendra Chandrakant Choksi jointly filed Regular Civil Suit No. 221 of 1998 in the Court of civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari against the present opponent no. 1 and 2 - original defendant no. 1 and 2 for recovering the possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent of the property bearing Municipal House No. 301/6 in the town of Navsari.

( 2 ) ITs an old tenancy of 1972. It is contended by the original plaintiffs in the suit that the suit property was let out to the defendant no. 1 for the purpose of running a diamond factory subject to the following conditions:-1. The month of tenancy would start from 1st day of each English calendar month and would end on the last day of the same month. 2. The rent was required to be paid as and when it accrues due from month to month before 5th day of each month. 3. No major or permanent changes would be effected in the rented premises. 4. The rented premises would be used only for the purpose of running a diamond factory. 5. The rented property would not be permitted to be sublet or transferred or assigned in any manner in favour of anybody else. 6. No act would be permitted to be committed in the rented premises so as to cause any nuisance or annoyance to the neighbours of the rented property. 7. No easily inflammable substance will be permitted to be stored in the rented premises. 8. The tenant-defendant No. 1 is required to pay an amount of Rs. 100. 00 per month by way of rent of the suit premises to the plaintiffs-landlords regularly.

( 3 ) THE defendant no. 1 failed and neglected to pay rent of the suit premises regularly to the plaintiffs and the rent had accrued due from 1. 1. 1987. Thus, the defendant no. 1 was in arrears of rent for more than six months. Therefore, the plaintiffs became entitled to recover possession of the suit property from him. Accordingly, they filed suit before the Civil Court. It was also contended by the plaintiffs that the defendant no. 1 had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to the defendant no. 2.

( 4 ) THUS, in short, the suit was filed for recovering possession of the suit premises on two grounds:- (i) The rent had become due for more than six months from the date of institution of the suit. Thus, the defendants are in arrears of rent for a period of 14 months on the date of filing of the suit which was filed in 1988. They neglected to pay the said rent despite of service of statutory notice and (ii) the defendant no. 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to the defendant no. 2 and thereby violated the conditions of Rent and provisions of the Rent Act. The Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that notice for termination issued by the land lord under section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act was legal and valid. He has also come to the conclusion that the tenants were not ready and willing to pay the rent regularly and that they neglected in making payment of rent. However, the taxes were to be paid by their tenant, therefore, the learned Judge held that provisions of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act would apply and not Section 12 (3) (a ). On that ground alone, the Learned Judge dismissed the suit.

( 5 ) SHRI Pardiwala, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner-land lord conceded that the taxes were to be paid by the tenant and therefore, it would be yearly tenancy and not monthly and the case would fall under section 12 (3) (b), but his submission was that when he had challenged the impugned judgement and decree dated 30. 12. 1997 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in Regular suit No. 221 of 1998 by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1993 before the Court of Assistant Judge, Valsad then during the appeal also, the tenants were required to make the regular payment. He submitted that though the appeal was admitted in 1992 and pending for last 8