JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:--This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the landlord-petitioner against the tenant in respect of recovery of the possession of a room in "Ramtirth Kutir situated at 23-A, Doongarsi Road, Bombay-400 006, against the decision of the Appeal Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 648 of 1966, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 2. It is alleged that the tenant is in arrears of rent with effect from March 1, 1958 to January 31, 1963. The said suit was contested by the tenant denying the arrears of rents as claimed in the notice of demand dated February 21, 1963. The tenant further contended that he had paid rent upto February 1963. It appears that an order was passed during the pendency of the suit on November 15, 1963 directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/-. After deposing the said amount the opponent filed his defences. The trial Judge after considering the evidence led before him by the parties, came to the conclusion that the tenant-respondent was not in arrears of rent for more than six months and further held that the notice of demand dated February 21, 1963 was bad in law and consequently dismissed the suit. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Appeal Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The Appeal Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record held that : "From the evidence on record it appears that no rent receipt was passed for the rent paid by the respondent and the counter-foils produced by the appellants at Exs. 3 to 9 are not reliable." It is further held that : "the conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the payments shown in the notebooks Ex. 2 were the only payments made by the respondent does not appear to be correct. There appears much truth in the case of the respondent that he has made payments besides the payments shown in these notebooks and they have not been entered in the notebook Ex. 2. We rely on the statement of the respondent that he has paid rent upto February 1963 and that he was not in arrears on 21-2-1963 when the notice of demand was served on him. 2. We rely on the statement of the respondent that he has paid rent upto February 1963 and that he was not in arrears on 21-2-1963 when the notice of demand was served on him. After considering the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove that the respondent was in arrears of rent as contemplated under section 12(3)(a) of the ... Rent Act." 4. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Appeal Court cannot be disturbed in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That finding is based upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. There is no defect whatsoever or it is not that the said finding is without any evidence on record. In view of the said finding, it is not possible to hold that the tenant was in arrears of rent. Mr. L.V. Talaulikar who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the finding recorded by the Appeal Court is incorrect and erroneous, inasmuch as the Appeal Court has rejected the documentary evidence on improper grounds. Mr. Talaulikar further submitted that the notice given by the landlord will not be invalid on the ground that the precise amount of arrears of rent has not been given in the demand notice. In support of his said contention Mr. Talaulikar relied upon an authority of this Court in (Lalshankar Mulji Joshi v. Kantilal Mohanlal Parikh)1, 74 Bom.L.R. 241. It is true that the said authority lays down that a notice under section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, is not invalid simply because by mistake or over-sight the landlord has demanded the rent for the month for which it was not due. However, this authority will not help the landlord in his contention in the present case. It is not his case that by over sight or by mistake an incorrect amount was stated in the notice. It appears from the record that he was not able to fix up the correct arrears of rent. The landlord merely relied upon some counter-foils and calculated the areas of rent. It is found by the Appeal Court, that the counter-foils that were produced by the landlord did not correctly given the arrears of rent. It appears from the record that he was not able to fix up the correct arrears of rent. The landlord merely relied upon some counter-foils and calculated the areas of rent. It is found by the Appeal Court, that the counter-foils that were produced by the landlord did not correctly given the arrears of rent. Therefore, the Appeal Court accepted the evidence of the tenant and held that the tenant had paid entire arrears of rent upto February 1963. 5. Mr. P.S. Shah, who appears on behalf of the tenant, brought to my notice a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of (Bapulal Kalidas others v. Bai Krishnaben wd/o Chimanlal Chaganlal)2, 18 Guj.L.R. 77 and contended that the notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act stating that the rent at a specified rate was in arrears for a period of more than six months was ineffective in law and that the condition precedent to the filing of the suit having thus not been satisfied, no decree under section 12(3)(a) could have been passed. The notice demanding arrears of rent must comply with the requirements of law. The demand must be precise and if the requirements of the law is not complied with, such a notice is invalid. 6. Sub-section (2) of section, 12 of the Bombay Rent Act lays down that : "12(2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882." In the present case, the demand notice is dated February 21, 1963. As held by both the courts below precise amount of arrears of rent was not shown in the notice. Further both the courts below on the appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the amount shown in the demand notice was incorrect and not precise. The Appeal Court held that the tenant has paid full rent upto February 1963. In view of this clear finding, it must be held that the demand notice wherein the arrears of rent are claimed with effect from March 1, 1958 to February 21, 1963 is incorrect. The Appeal Court held that the tenant has paid full rent upto February 1963. In view of this clear finding, it must be held that the demand notice wherein the arrears of rent are claimed with effect from March 1, 1958 to February 21, 1963 is incorrect. It is not the petitioners case that the said mistake has occurred because of over-sight. It is not the petitioners case that the incorrect amount was shown on the ground of mistake or over-sight. Thus, the notice given by the landlord terminating the tenancy of the petitioner is invalid, and therefore, a decree for possession under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act cannot be passed. The Appeal Court rightly held that the tenant is not a defaulter on the date of the demand notice or on the date of the institution of the suit, and therefore, the plaintiffs suit was rightly dismissed. 7. As stated above, the tenant was directed to deposit Rs. 500/- in Court which he had deposited. It appears that the landlord has withdrawn that amount from the Court. It also appears that the tenant has further deposited rent upto June 30, 1973. The tenant will be entitled to the adjustment of the excess amount deposited by him in the Court. The tenant-respondent is hereby directed to deposit a further amount of Rs. 312.40 in the trial Court towards the arrears of rent upto June 30, 1978 within two weeks from today. The landlord-petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the same. 8. In the result, rule is discharged with costs. -----