JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is a tenants petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree of ejectment passed by the Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondents who terminated the tenancy and instituted a suit for ejectment and possession against the petitioner on various grounds, one of which was default of payment of rent. It was the case of the respondents that the tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1955, while it was the case of the petitioner that he was the tenant since prior to 1940. The respondents claimed that the petitioner is in arrears of rent from 1st October, 1960 to 31st May, 1964. Notice dated 9th June, 1964 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and demanding the arrears of rent was issued by the respondents. The petitioner replied that the rent was excessive and exhorbitant but because of the relations between the parties for a number of years, he did not want to raise a dispute about the rent. On failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirements of the notice, the respondents filed the suit which was contested by the petitioner but it appears that in the written statement the petitioner has not raised any dispute about the standard rent. However, Issue No. 5 was framed along with other issues by the trial Court which reads : "Whether the defendant proves that the rent is excessive? If so, what is the standard rent?" The parties led evidence and the learned Judge found that the agreed rent was not excessive and it was a standard rent. He also held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from October 1960 and that he had not made payment of the arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of the notice demanding the payment. He, therefore, held that the case was governed by Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the "Rent Act") and he decreed the plaintiffs claim for possession. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. It is against this judgment that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Tipnis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that both the courts below have committed an error in holding that the suit was governed by Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the rent Act. He submitted that as a matter of fact there was a dispute about the rent and, therefore, the case was governed by Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Rent Act. The Appellate Bench has committed an error in holding that the petitioner has not raised any dispute about the standard rent in his written statement. Mr. Tipnis conceded that in the written statement the dispute regarding standard rent was not raised and, therefore, he filed Civil Application No. 1321 of 1974 seeking permission a amend his written statement to enable him to raise the dispute about the standard rent. In my view, it is not necessary to consider this application as Issue No. 5 was specifically raised in the trial Court regarding the standard rent and the parties have led evidence regarding the standard rent and it is after considering the evidence that the trial Judge has recorded the finding that the agreed rent was the standard rent. In view of this, the petitioner had a chance to lead evidence in support of his case which he wants to introduce by way of amendment. It is true that the Appellate Court has observed :--- "In the first place no question would arise about standard rent as there was no contention to that effect in the written statement filed by the defendant. Further we find that there is no substance in the argument that the standard rent should be based on the rent prevailing prior to 1939, when the evidence showed that the rent as on 1-9-1940 was Rs. 4/- p.m." The case regarding the standard rent was, therefore, examined by both the courts below and they have found that the defence regarding the dispute of the rent was not bona fide and that being the position, the case was clearly governed, as held by both the courts below, by Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Rent Act. The petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. The rule in Civil Application No. 1321 of 1974 is also discharged. Under the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs. -----