M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has brought under challenge under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act", the Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 142 of 1978 on 12th July, 1981. The Appellate Bench while allowing the Appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree of learned trial Judge dismissing the suit for possession and fixed the standard rent of the room in question at Rs. 15/- p. m. and the shed in question at Rs. 8/- p. m. both inclusive of taxes, directing the petitioner-defendant No. 1 tenant to pay Rs. 471. 37 ps. by way of arrears of rent and mesne profits and also directing him to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 23/- p. m. from the date of the suit till recovery of possession. The Appellate Bench directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and handover peaceful and vacant possession thererof to the plaintiff on or before 28th October, 1981. ( 2 ) THE facts have been made complex by the manner in which the suit came to be filed. Two different tenancies for two premises have been clubbed in one suit by the plaintiff. The facts of the plaintiffs case and the petitioners defence may therefore be briefly stated : the petitioner is the original defendant and the respondents are respectively the original plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Both the respondents having died during the pendency of this Revision Application their heirs have been brought on record. The deceased respondents were managing the suit premises as trustees of Shri Kamnath Mahadev Public Trust. Out of the said two trustees plaintiff Shri Manubhai Chhotalal Bhatt filed H. R. P. Suit No. 3602 of 1973 for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and possession of the suit premises being one room and one shed. The premises in the form of one room bearing Municipal Census No. 86 was let out to the petitioner-tenant for the rent of Rs. 15 / - p. m. and the shed in front thereof bearing Municipal Census No. 80/1 was let out to the petitioner for the rent of Rs. 8/- p. m. In all the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 15 / - p. m. and the shed in front thereof bearing Municipal Census No. 80/1 was let out to the petitioner for the rent of Rs. 8/- p. m. In all the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 23 / - p. m. by way of rent per month. It was alleged that the liability to pay municipal tax and education cess was on the petitioner-tenant. It was the case of the plaintiff that shed was first let out and the room was thereafter let out. The plaintiff gave notice dated 26-3-1965 to which the petitioner gave reply dated 17-4-l965 admitting that the rent was; to be paid to the said two trustees in alternate years. The rent fell due from 2-11-1964 and it amounted to Rs. 1229. 48 ps. or for the period from 2-11-1964 to 30-4-1973. The plaintiff being one of the trustees terminated the tenancy under the Suit Notice dated 30-4-1973 and since the petitioner did not accept the said notice the plaintiff had to file suit joining the petitioner-defendant No. 1 trustees and other trustee as defendant No. 2 in the suit. ( 3 ) THE petitioners stand was that other trustee -- defendant No. 2 had let out the room and the shed to him in the year 1964, but after keeping the shed for about 8 months it was removed and hence the trustees had no right to recover any rent for the same. He raised the dispute of standard rent alleging that the standard rent of the premises in the form of the room should be Rs. 10/- p. m. He denied his liability to pay municipal tax and education cess in respect of the suit premises. He denied having received the Suit Notice. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge, of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, Court No. 3, by his Judgment and Decree dated 2-11-1977 dismissed the plaintiffs suit for eviction, fixed the standard rent of the room premises at Rs. 15 /- p. m. inclusive of municipal tax and the shed premises at Rs. 8 / - p. m. inclusive of municipal tax declaring that the shed should be deemed to have been surrendered to the plaintiff since the date of written statement i. e. 15-9-1973. The learned Judge directed the defendant to pay mesne profits for the shed from 8-1-1973 to 15-9-1973 at Rs. 8 / - p. m. inclusive of municipal tax declaring that the shed should be deemed to have been surrendered to the plaintiff since the date of written statement i. e. 15-9-1973. The learned Judge directed the defendant to pay mesne profits for the shed from 8-1-1973 to 15-9-1973 at Rs. 8/- p. m. He also directed the petitioner to pay mesne profits for the room at Rs. 15/- p. m. from 1-5-1973, and directed the petitioner-tenant to pay cost of the suit. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff carried the matter in Appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 142 of 1978. The Appellate Court reversed the Judgment and Decree of dismissal of the plaintiffs suit for possession and passed Decree for eviction as stated above. That is how the petitioner is before this Court. ( 6 ) MR. H. J. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner has submitted that Appellate Court has erred in law in clubbing the two different tenancies and two different premises for fixing of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 23/- p. m. and that having disbelieved the petitioners case that there was surrender of tenancy in respect of shed and having fixed standard rent at Rs. 8/- p. m. insofar as shed is concerned the Appellate Bench ought to have given time to the petitioner to deposit difference of arrears of rent and mesne profits, if any. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Harnamsing Lalsing v. Gangaram Itchharam, reported in 1968 (9) Guj LR 323. In my opinion both the submissions of Mr. Patel would hold good. It is plain to find that unless the parties agree the two different tenancies and two different premises could not have been clubbed by the Appellate Court. It is a different matter that the plaintiff had chosen to file one suit in respect of two different tenancies and two different premises. The Appellate Bench has also erred in law in not granting time to the petitioner-tenant to deposit difference of rent and mesne profits after having set aside the Judgment and Decree dismissing the plaintiffs suit for eviction rendered by the trial Court. The trial Court did accept the stand of the petitioner regarding surrendering of his tenancy at least from 15-9-1973 i. e. the date of written statement Ex. 12. The trial Court did accept the stand of the petitioner regarding surrendering of his tenancy at least from 15-9-1973 i. e. the date of written statement Ex. 12. If the Appellate Court would not accept even this finding of the learned trial Judge the Appellate Court would have to say about fixation of the standard rent of the shed premises and payment thereof. Under such circumstances the Appellate Court ought to have granted time to the petitioner-tenant to deposit difference between the amount deposited by the petitioner-tenant and the amount that might be required to be worked out upon the fixation of standard rent of shed and upholding the petitioners liability to pay the same. That being the position appearing on the face of the Judgment of the Appellate Court the decision in Mrunalini v. Bapulal, reported in (1978) 19 Guj LR 1090 : ( AIR 1980 SC 954 ) could have hardly any application to the facts of the present case. Admittedly the present case is governed by Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act. As stated above, the dispute of standard rent has also direct connection with the two different premises stated to have been let out at two different points of time. There was also a dispute with regard to surrender of tenancy of the shed premises by the petitioner. The disputes clearly appear to be bona fide. The resolution of such multifold disputes as aforesaid would necessarily require the petitioner to know as to what would be the amount of rent and mesne profits which he would have to deposit in the Court. In the facts of the case therefore, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Court to grant time to the petitioner to deposit the difference of amount. ( 7 ) IN view of what is stated above it is clear that the Appellate Court has committed a grave error of law on the face of record in passing the Decree for eviction and in clubbing the two premises and the two tenancies for fixation, of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 23/ -. ( 7 ) IN view of what is stated above it is clear that the Appellate Court has committed a grave error of law on the face of record in passing the Decree for eviction and in clubbing the two premises and the two tenancies for fixation, of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 23/ -. ( 8 ) IN the result, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Ahmedabad Small Causes Court on 28-7l98l in Appeal No. 142 of 1973 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Bench of the Ahmedabad Small Causes Court for hearing the Appeal No. 142 of 1978 strictly on merits bearing in mind the observations made in this Judgment. The Appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible giving priority to it. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .