N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) REGULAR Civil Suit No. 87 of 1976 was filed under the provisions of Bombay rent Act in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.), Bhuj for getting vacant possession of the suit premises. The indentity and the area of the suit premises not being in dispute, I will not enter into the details thereof. ( 2 ) THE suit was based on the solitary ground of non-payment of rent for more than six months. The learned Trial Judge accepted the say of the tenant that he has not neglected to pay rent and he had held that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. Obviously, these two proportions are mutually exclusive if there is no neglect, there cannot be any question of the tenant being not ready and willing. The tenant carried matter by way of Appeal No. 144 of 1981 before the learned District Judge, Bhuj and the learned District Judge, Bhuj by his judgment dated 18th January 1986 corrected the position by dealing with the matter under the provision of Section 12 (3) (A) of the Rent Act. The readyness and willingness is required to be considered if the case is following under the provision of Section 12 (3) (b) of the rent Act and not otherwise. There was no dispute as to the Standard Rent and hence if an arrear is of more than six months is established the case will fall squarely within Section 12 (3) (a) of the rent Act. The District Judge is, therefore, right in applying that provision. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, he was totally wrong in appreciating the evidence, and therefore, there is clearly an error of law in exercising jurisdiction in as much as the finding of the District Judge with regard to neglect on the part of the tenant is concerned. ( 4 ) THE Suit Notice Exh. 32 was issued as required by provision of Section 12 of the Rent Act. However, before the notice was issued in the month of november 1975, the plaintiff had remitted by Money-Order Rs. 36/- towards the rent. That Money-Order was refused as per Exh. 79. Therefore, when the tenant responded to the notice Exh. 32 by his reply Exh. 32 was issued as required by provision of Section 12 of the Rent Act. However, before the notice was issued in the month of november 1975, the plaintiff had remitted by Money-Order Rs. 36/- towards the rent. That Money-Order was refused as per Exh. 79. Therefore, when the tenant responded to the notice Exh. 32 by his reply Exh. 44, he correctly pointed out that the Money-Order having been refused, he has deposited this amount in the Civil Court at Bhuj in an account which was already pending in the name of the landlord because the tenant had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 39 of 1975. ( 5 ) THE learned District Judge is right in arriving at the conclusion that the deposit of Rs. 36/- was after the disposal of the said suit. However, he has completely lost sight of the fact that the tenant was prompted to make this deposit because the Money-Order was refused. Taking into consideration the long history of litigation between the parties going back to the year 1974, when first notice for non-payment was served on the tenant by the landlord demanding Rs. 108/- by way of arrears. Disputing the claim, however, on safe side, the tenant had remitted the entire amount which was accepted by the landlord. ( 6 ) THE tenant, therefore, filed said 1975 suit, so that he can get entire amount back but the tenant lost the suit. During the pendency of that suit, in the month of March 1975, the tenant had deposited rs. 40/- in the Civil Court at Bhuj. This was followed by the further deposit of rs. 36/- as stated above. ( 7 ) IT is, therefore, clear that the tenant is not withholding the amount with him. On the contrary, he has already deposited the sum on two different occasions in the Court and before that he had already deposited the sum on two different occasions in the Court and before that he had already attempted to tender notice by way of the Money-Order so that, it may be received by the landlord directly. The landlord is also aware that the amount is lying in the Court and that has been clearly pointed out to him by the tenant in his reply to the suit notice. The landlord is also aware that the amount is lying in the Court and that has been clearly pointed out to him by the tenant in his reply to the suit notice. ( 8 ) IN this background, it is not at all possible to hold that there is any neglect on the part of the tenant. If this is not so, obviously, there cannot be any decree of eviction under Section 12 (3) (a) of the rent Act. The failure on the part of the learned District Judge, to correctly appreciate the evidence, has, therefore, led to passing of the decree and in exercise of revisional jurisdiction it is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment and decree is set aside. Regular Civil Suit no. 87 of 1976 is hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parlies shall bear their own costs. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. .