J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision petition, the petitioner/original defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned tenant District judge, Valsad, at Navsari, in Regular Civil suit No. 87 of 1976, on 28-2-1979, by invoking the aids of the provisions of section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Rent Act for short hereinafter ). ( 2 ) A resume of the material facts leading to the rise of the present petition, needs narration, so as to appreciate the merits of the revision and challenge against it. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein is the original defendant-tenant. The respondents herein are the original plaintiff-landlord. For the sake of convenience and brevity, they are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendant. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit no. 90 of 1974 in the court of the Civil judge (J. D. ). Valsad, against the defendant for recovery of rent and possession of the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The defendant is a tenant in respect of a residential property bearing City Survey no. 3275, situated in Valsad Town, which is hereinafter referred to as the "demised property". The standard rent of the demised property was fixed, at Rs. 70/- plus education cess and municipal taxes. The defendant was served with a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Rent Act. The defendant did not comply or reply the demand notice. Therefore, the suit was filed for rent and possession against the defendant. ( 5 ) THE defendant-tenant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement, Ex. 1 He, inter alia, contended that the suit was not maintainable as plaintiff No. 2 is not the owner of the demised property. It was admitted that the standard rent was fixed in the earlier proceedings between the parties. The defendant further contended that the rent was not in arrears and he was not a defaulter. He contended that he had offered the rent to the plaintiffs but it was not accepted. ( 6 ) ON appreciation of the evidence, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the ejectment decree came to be passed by the trial Court. The defendant further contended that the rent was not in arrears and he was not a defaulter. He contended that he had offered the rent to the plaintiffs but it was not accepted. ( 6 ) ON appreciation of the evidence, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the ejectment decree came to be passed by the trial Court. Being dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree, the defendant/tenant preferred Regular Civil appeal No. 87 of 1976, in the District court, Valsad, at Navsari. The defendant lost in the appeal and hence the present revision under Section 29 (2) of the Rent act. ( 7 ) THE decree for eviction under section 12 (3) (b) for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent is challenged in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner-original defendant-tenant has contended that decree under challenge in this revision is erroneous and illegal. He has, forcefully, contended that the defendant-tenant is entitled to protection under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant-tenant, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts. Notice under section 12 (2) of the Rent Act was dated 18-2-1974 and it was served upon the defendant-tenant on 20-2-1974, which is produced, at Ex. 31. It is an admitted fact that rent was in arrears for more than six months when the demand notice served on the defendant-tenant. Admittedly, notice was not replied nor it was complied. There was no dispute of standard rent even in the written statement. In fact, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 70/- per month in a miscellaneous Civil Application No. 51 of 1971, on 30-7-1973. No amount of rent was paid in the Trial Court until 18-9-1975. The suit was filed on 17-6-1974 and the issues were settled, on 7-7-1975. ( 9 ) THE contention that Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act is complied with and the tenant is entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act is, seriously, challenged. The suit was filed on 17-6-1974 and the issues were settled, on 7-7-1975. ( 9 ) THE contention that Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act is complied with and the tenant is entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act is, seriously, challenged. In order to earn the protection of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act, the tenant is required to comply with the following two conditions: (i) to pay or tender in court, the standard rent and permitted increases then due, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the court may fix; and (ii) (a) continues to pay or tender in court such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided; and (b) pays the costs of the suit as directed by court. It is contended that the aforesaid two conditions are satisfied so as to afford protection to the defendant-tenant. This contention is not acceptable in the facts of the present case. In order to seek the protection under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act, it would be incumbent upon the defendant-tenant to pay or tender in court, the amount of standard rent and permitted increases then due, on the first day of hearing of the suit. There is no dispute about the fact that first date of hearing of the suits is the day on which the court applied its mind, i. e. , framing of issues. The issues were framed in the trial Court, on 7-7-1975. Therefore, the question which requires to be investigated into is, as to whether the defendant-tenant had tendered or paid the amount of standard rent and permitted increases due on that date, i. e. , 7-7-1975. No payment was made till 18-9-1975. The defendant-tenant applied for extention of time for payment of arrears of rent after the settlement of issues and the Trial court was pleased to extend the time upto 6-9-1975. It is an admitted fact that no any amount of rent then due was tendered or paid in the court till 6-9-1975, the time as extented by the Trial Court. ( 10 ) THE defendant-tenant deposited an amount of Rs. l,026/-on 18-9-1975, in the trial Court, which is not disputed by the other side. It is an admitted fact that no any amount of rent then due was tendered or paid in the court till 6-9-1975, the time as extented by the Trial Court. ( 10 ) THE defendant-tenant deposited an amount of Rs. l,026/-on 18-9-1975, in the trial Court, which is not disputed by the other side. Relying on this deposit, it is contended that there was sufficient compliance of the first condition, i. e. , that the amount of arrears of rent was deposited in the court on the first date of hearing. This submission is unsustainable. What is contemplated in section 12 (3) (b) is the payment of entire amount then due on the first date of hearing. The Trial Court had extended the time for payment of arrears of rent upto 6-9-1975. No amount of arrears was paid till 18-9-1975. Thus, admittedly, the amount was not paid or tendered in the court on the first date of hearing, or by the time extended by the court, upto 6-9-1975. No extention of time was sought by the tenant from court after 6-9-1975. There was a delay of 12 days in making the payment in the Trial Court. The Trial court extended the time upto 6-9-1975 and the first payment was made, on 18-9-1975. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why no extention of time was sought in the Trial Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was compliance of the first condition of section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act. ( 11 ) THAT is not all. The amount which was deposited on 18-9-1975 was. only Rs. 1,026/- In fact the suit was for Rs. 2,550/- thereafter till the date of settlement of issues, the rent was in arrears for more than 12 months. It is apparent from the facts of the present case that almost 1/3 for the rent then due was deposited in the Trial Court. It means, 2/3 of the arrears of the rent had not been deposited even on 18-9-1975. Thus, the first condition, as aforesaid, was not satisfied. The tenant remained in default on the first date of hearing. It is also an admitted fact that no amount of rent was tendered or deposited thereafter till the decree was passed in the Trial Court. Thus, the tenant was in default even on the date of passing of decree. Thus, the first condition, as aforesaid, was not satisfied. The tenant remained in default on the first date of hearing. It is also an admitted fact that no amount of rent was tendered or deposited thereafter till the decree was passed in the Trial Court. Thus, the tenant was in default even on the date of passing of decree. The tenant has deposited some more amount after filing the appeal in the District Court. The defendant had deposited rent in the District Court pursuant to the conditional stay against the decree for possession was granted. It was only when a condition was laid down by the appellate court that the decree for possession would be stayed only on the payment of arrears of rent that the defendant-tenant deposited the amount of rent in arrears in the District court. The contention that there was substantial compliance of the first condition of Section 12 (3) (b) of the rent Act cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. ( 12 ) AS the tenant was liable to pay education cess and municipal taxes over and above the monthly rent of Rs. 70/- in respect of the demised property, there was no case under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Rent Act. The landlords-plaintiffs were not entitled to decree for possession under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Rent Act as one of the preconditions to attract the rigour of Section 12 (3) (a) of the Rent act is to prove that entire payment was to be made monthly. As this condition was not satisfied, there was no question of passing decree under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Rent Act. However, the tenant was not entitled to protection of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act as he failed to comply with the first part of the requirement of Section 12 (3) (b) of the rent Act. It was incumbent upon the defendant-tenant to pay or tender in court, the amount of standard rent and permitted increases then due, on the first date of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix. On the first date of hearing, no payment was made. Even on the extended date, no payment was made. No extention of time was sought. On the first date of hearing, no payment was made. Even on the extended date, no payment was made. No extention of time was sought. The amount deposited on 18-9-1975 was far behind the actual amount of the standard rent and permitted increases then due and the tenant was in default in payment of rent. There was no dispute of standard rent as the standard rent was fixed in earlier proceedings. The demand notice was neither replied nor complied with. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant was liable for eviction under section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act. As the tenant had failed to comply with the first condition of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act, the question as to whether the second condition of Section 12 (3) (b) is complied or not would not assume much significance or survival value, the eviction decree passed under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act is required to be confirmed. ( 13 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the tenant is liable for ejectment decree under section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no merits in this revision and it is required to be dismissed. ( 14 ) IN the result, this revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. The decree for ejectment shall not be executed upto 31-1-1992, on the condition that the defendant-tenant files an undertaking before this court on or before 9-10-1991 to the effect that he shall not part with the demised property during the period and he shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised property to the plaintiffs- landlords and that he shall pay up the entire amount of arrears of rent within one month from today. Rule is accordingly discharged. Rule discharged. .