( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner-original defendant against the judgment and decree dated 25. 10. 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1996 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad by which the judgment and decree dated 8. 12. 1995 in H. R. P. Suit no. 1548 of 1987 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad has been set aside to the extent of possession of the suit premises and rest of the judgment and decree of the trial court has been confirmed.

( 2 ) IT is stated that HRP suit no. 1548 of 1987 was filed against the petitioner-defendant-tenant for arrears of rent and eviction on other grounds on 2. 5. 1987. The arrears of rent were claimed from 1. 5. 1984 to 28. 2. 1987 by notice dated 31st March, 1987 which was served on the defendant on 6th April, 1987. The defendant submitted his reply on 30th April, 1987 within 30 days and claimed that the standard rent of the suit premises was Rs. 25. 00 per month as it was earlier rented to some other person at the rate of Rs. 25. 00 per month. Though the plaintiff claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per month and it is stated that it has not been made known to the plaitniff whether taxes have already been paid by the defendant or not. Hence, the claim was for education cess as well as municipal taxes. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 8th December, 1995 held that the plaintiff is not entitled for possession of the suit premises and the defendant was not found to be in arrears of rent and that the defendant had deposited the rent upto 31st December, 1995. There was no specific claim by the plaintiff in respect of the education cess. Hence, half of the education was to be payable by the defendant from 1995-96. The standard rent was also fixed at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per month inclusive of municipal taxes and half of the education cess to be payable by the defendant. On an appeal being filed by the plaintiff before the Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, the Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25. 10. 2002 has reversed the judgment of the trial court to the extent of possession of the suit premises and rest of the judgment and decree of the trial court has been confirmed. The respondent-original defendant was directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the appellant-landlord on or before 31st December, 2002. The Appellate Bench has allowed the appeal mainly on two grounds. That the dispute regard standard rent raised by the tenant was not a bonafide dispute and it was raised only for the sake of raising the same. The second ground is that section 11 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act provides an opportunity to the tenant to move an application for standard rent or fixation of interim standard rent. If the tenant fails to do so, the tenant should pay or deposit the agreed rent in absence of fixation of the standard rent or interim standard rent.

( 3 ) FROM the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the relevant record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that in the present case, there is no pleading on behalf of the plaintiff that the dispute regarding standard rent raised by the defendant was not bonafide or malafide. So far as the first question regarding bonafide dispute of standard rent is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Valati Lalmohmed vs. Sarfunnissa Abdulmajid and others reported in 1993 (1) GLH, 164 in which it is held that in appeal, the Appellate Court decreed the suit for possession and took the view that dispute raised by tenant about the standard rent in his reply to the demand notice was not a bonafide dispute. It was held that in absence of pleading by the landlord to the effect that dispute raised by tenant as regards standard rent was not a bonafide dispute, the Court could not arrive a