N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) N. H. BHATT J. This is a revision application filed by the original defendants of the H. R. P. Civil Suit No. 1264 of 1975 dismissed in their favour by the trial Judge namely the Judge of the Small Causes Court whose judgment came to be set at naught by the appellate Bench of that Court in the respondent-landlords Regular Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1979. Being aggrieved by the said decree of eviction the original defendants have filed this revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 2 ) A few facts as found by the appellate Bench are required to be noted with precision. The tenants were in arrears of rent from 1-11-1969 and despite the notice Ex. 32 dated 14-9-1972 received by the tenants on 18-9-1972 they had failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice as held by the Appellate Bench contrary to what was found by the learned trial Judge. It is further found by the Appellate Bench that no dispute about standard rent was raised within one month of the receipt of the notice but as the taxes were demanded by the notice of demand Ex. 30 the Appellate Bench held that the case would not fall under sec. 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. The appellate Bench further found that as there was no regular payment of rent a s per the rate demanded the protection given by sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act was not available to the tenants and the result was that eviction decree followed. ( 3 ) NOW it is to be noted with pertinence that the dispute about standard rent was raised by the tenants in the written statement. It is again a finding that the standard rent came to be fixed for the first time at the rate of Rs. 8. 00 plus Rs. 3. 00 by way of permitted increase per month by the learned trial Judge at the time of the final conclusion. It is again an admitted position that in the memo. of appeal the land- lords had raised a dispute against the fixation of Rs. 8. 00 as standard rent. presumably because according to them the standard rent should have been fixed at Rs. 10. It is again an admitted position that in the memo. of appeal the land- lords had raised a dispute against the fixation of Rs. 8. 00 as standard rent. presumably because according to them the standard rent should have been fixed at Rs. 10. 00 plus Rs. 3/ by way of permitted increase but it appears that at the time the matter was heard before the appe- llate Bench this point was not pressed. ( 4 ) MR. A. L. Shah the learned Advocate for the petitioners-tenants urged only one point before me namely the tenants were not in a position to know exactly at what rate they were required to pay up the arrears and hence as they were not specifically informed by a judicial decision of the rate of deposit any short-fall at some stage cannot go to their detriment and they cannot be said to have forfeited the benign benefit of sec. 13 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. There are two judgments of this Court one delivered by My Brother Majmudar J. in the case of CHAMPABEN V. GOPINATH GANGADHAR XXI G. L. R. PAGE-709 and one unreported judgment of mine in the case of NARANBHAI NATHABHAI KOLI V. MODHIA PANALAL MAGANLAL IN THE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1635 decided by me on 9/04/1982. In the case decided by me the case was falling under sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act and for the technical purpose of sec. 12 (3) (a) it could be said that there was no dispute about standard rent in so far as a having been not raised within one month from the date of the notice as is the case in this revision application also I however held and so has been held by My Brother Majmudar J. in the case of Champaben that in order to avail himself of the benefit of sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act the tenant must know at what rate he has to go on paying the rent and if there was on hand of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court the question of deciding what the standard rent is the tenant can be said to be technically not able to deposit the rent fully even-though he may be willing to do so. I and My Brother Majmudar J. have placed our reliance on the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MANJI PANCHA V. DAULAL NARAINDAS XI G. L. R. PAGE 285. In view of these judgments the tenants revision application is required to be allowed. ( 5 ) MR. Shah however invited my attention to three judgments namely 5 G. L. R. page 55 in the case of VORA ABBASBHAI ALIMAHOMED V. HAJI GULAMNABI HAJI SAFIBHAI A. I. R 1980 SUPREME COURT PAGE 954 in the case of MRANALINI S. SHAH AND ANR. V. BAPALAL MOHANLAL SHAH and the full bench decision of this Court to which was a party in the case of RAMNIKLAL DWARKADAS MODI V. MOHANLAL LAXMICHAND AND ORS. 18 G. L. R. P. 32. In my estimation the ratio decidendi of all these three cases is quite different from the point which I am required to decide in this revision application. In Ramniklals case what was decided was that as to when a case would fall within the purview of sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act that is these circumstances are envisaged in that judgment. In the Supreme Courts Judgment what has been explained is the meaning of the term regularly appearing in sec 12 (3) (b) of the Act. The earlier judgment in the case of Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed (5 G. L. R. page 55) also does not deal with the question which has been viewed by me and My Brother Majmudar J. in the aforesaid cases. There is no question of regular deposit during the appeal because during the appeal also the dispute about the standard rent was agitated before the learned Judges but was not pressed at hearing as no specific point for determination has been raised by the learned Judges. ( 6 ) THE result is that the revision application is allowed by setting aside the appellate judgment and restoring that of the trial Judge In the facts and circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their own costs through-out. .