JUDGMENT : S.H. SETH, J. 1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds that the defendant had been in arrears of rent and that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own occupation. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim. 2. The learned Trial Judge upheld the plaintiff's contention as to arrears of rent and negatived the plaintiff's ground as to reasonable and bona fide requirement for his personal occupation. Since he upheld one of the two grounds alleged by the plaintiff he passed in favour of the plaintiff a decree for possession. 3. The defendant appealed against that decree to the District Court. Before the learned Appellate Judge the plaintiff did not press his reasonable and bona fide requirement but supported the decree only on the ground of arrears of rent. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. 4. It is that appellate decree which is challenged by the defendant in this Revision Application. 5. The only question which Mr. Naik has raised is as follows :- The notice of demand was bad in law and the suit was, not maintainable because the plaintiff made his claim for arrears of rent not according to the British Calendar but according to the Gujarati Calendar. 6. So far as this contention is concerned it cannot be upheld in view of our decision which we have just now recorded in Civil Revision Application No. 462 of 1972. It, therefore, fails and is rejected. 7. Mr. Naik has tried to raise a further contention that the Courts below were in error in passing against the defendant decree for possession on the basis of section 12(3)(a). According to him, the case fell under section 12(3)(b) and the defendant was protected because he had paid up all arrears of rent within time in Court. It appears to us from the record of the case that the defendant had made three deposits of rent in the Trial Court. One was made on 30th June, 1970, another was made on the 28th August, 1970 and the third was made on 22nd September, 1970. The issues were framed on 23rd June, 1970 which was on account of that reason the first date of hearing of that suit. One was made on 30th June, 1970, another was made on the 28th August, 1970 and the third was made on 22nd September, 1970. The issues were framed on 23rd June, 1970 which was on account of that reason the first date of hearing of that suit. Assuming that the present case fell under section 12(3)(b) the defendant was not protected by it because he had not deposited in the Trial Court all arrears of rent on or before 22nd June, 1970. In order to avail himself of the protection under section 12(3)(b) he ought to have deposited all arrears of rent before the first date of hearing as contemplated by section 12(3)(b) and ought to have paid them regularly in the Court till the suit was finally decided (vide Lalchand Jematmal v. Nenabhai Ranchhoddas and others, 17 Guj. L.R. 1). Since he did not do it he could not avail himself of the protection under section 12(3)(b). In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to enter into the question and find out whether the present suit was governed by section 12(3)(a) or section 12(3)(b). We are assuming in favour of the defendant that the suit was governed by section 12(3)(b) and yet the defendant was not protected, we therefore, find no infirmity in the decree passed by the Courts below. In that view of the matters we find no substance in this Revision Application. It fails and is dismissed. 8. Rule discharged with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Revision dismissed.