ORDER : J.N. Bhatt, J. This revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("Rent Act" for short) is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1978 by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Judge of the Small Cause Court in Rent suit No. 3191 of 1075 on 6-5-1978. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant-tenant and the respondent is the original plain-tiff-landlord. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as the landlord and tenant for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The landlord initiated legal battle by filing the aforesaid suit in the Small Cause Court, Baroda for recovery of possession of the dismissed premises on the ground of arrears of rent and act of waste. 4. The defendant-tenant denied the allegations made in the plaint by filing the written statement. In view of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the landlord is not entitled to ejectment decree on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of waste. The suit came to be dismissed for possession on 6-5-1988. However, the trial Court passed a decree for payment of rent of Rs. 189.94. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree recorded by the trial Court, the landlord carried the matter before the District Court by filing the aforesaid appeal. The appeal came to be allowed. The decree of the trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover possession of the demised premises from the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act as per the appellate Court judgment. The alleged ground of waste was not believed by the appellate Court. In short, while allowing the appeal, the appellate Court passed a decree on the ground of arrears of rent on 30-7-1979. 6. It appears from the facts and circumstances that both the Courts have not seriously taken into consideration the material provisions of Section 12(1) of the Rent Act. The following facts have emerged from the record of the present case. 7. The contractual rate of rent of Rs. 6. It appears from the facts and circumstances that both the Courts have not seriously taken into consideration the material provisions of Section 12(1) of the Rent Act. The following facts have emerged from the record of the present case. 7. The contractual rate of rent of Rs. 12/-per month in respect of the demised premises came to be fixed as standard rent in the earlier litigation between the parties. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act dated 31-5-1975 produced at ex. 32 was received by the tenant on 3-6-1975. The landlord demanded arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month for the period of seven months. Thus, total demand of arrears of rent was of Rs. 84/-. in the notice under Section 12 (2). The tenant instead of filing a separate reply, tendered the amount of rent as claimed in the notice by a money order dated 12-6-1975 produced at ex. 43. Unfortunately, the money order sent by the tenant pursuant to the demand notice ex. 32 within a period of one month came to be reduced by the landlord which has remained un controverted from the record of the present case. It is also clearly mentioned in the money order coupon that the tenant was entitled to recover an amount of Rs 160.50 by way of cost of the previous litigation. Though the landlord had agreed to adjust the said amount of cost of the previous litigation between the parties towards the arrears of rent, he demanded the arrears of rent by giving the notice ex. 32. Had that amount been adjusted towards the arrears of rent as agreed, the question of arrears of rent and resultant service of notice would not have arisen. However, notice ex. 32 came to be served claiming and demanding arrears of rent for 7 months at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month which came to be fixed as standard rent in the earlier litigation. Thus, Rs. 84/- claimed in the notice under the Rent Act was tendered by the money order by the tenant within a period of one month after receipt of the notice. 12/- per month which came to be fixed as standard rent in the earlier litigation. Thus, Rs. 84/- claimed in the notice under the Rent Act was tendered by the money order by the tenant within a period of one month after receipt of the notice. This proposition has remained unquestionable from the record of the present case, with the result, the question of passing of decree on the ground of non-payment of rent either under Section 12(3)(a) or 12(3)(b) would not have assumed any survival value in view provisions of Section 12(1) of the Rent Act. Section 12(1) reads as under:- "A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act." 8. It would be very well visualised from the aforesaid provisions that if the tenant pays rent as demanded or if he is ready and willing to pay the amount of standard rent and permitted increases and observes other conditions of tenancy, the landlord would not be entitled to recovery of possession, the question of non-observance or non-performance of conditions of tenant would not arise in the present case. The tenant was not only ready and willing to pay the rent but he had tendered the rent by way of money order within one month as demanded which came to be refused. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the case is governed by the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Rent Act. 9. The Courts below have unfortunately not considered the provisions of Section 12(1) and the factual scenario which has remained unquestionable. Since the appellate Court has committed serious error of law in mis appreciating the provisions of law, this Court even in a revision under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act is required to interfere and quash the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to possession of the demised premises. 10. Alternatively also, the learned Appellate Judge has taken into consideration the arrears of rent demanded in the earlier notice Ex. 28 dated 7-7-1973. The arrears are calculated by the appellate Court from 12-10-1972, whereas, in the suit notice Ex. 10. Alternatively also, the learned Appellate Judge has taken into consideration the arrears of rent demanded in the earlier notice Ex. 28 dated 7-7-1973. The arrears are calculated by the appellate Court from 12-10-1972, whereas, in the suit notice Ex. 32 under Section 12(2), rent demanded is only for 7 months. Not only that, even the suit filed by the plaintiff shows that arrears of rent are demanded as per notice Ex. 32 and not as per earlier notice Ex. 28. It is, therefore, very clear that the tenant was not in arrears of rent from 12-10-1972 as held by the learned Appellate Judge. It is really not understood as to how this date is considered by the appellate Court. Rent is not demanded from 12-10-1972 vide notice Ex. 32 under Section 12(2) nor such arrears of rent are claimed in the suit. In the circumstances, computation of arrears of rent by the appellate Court from 12-10-1972 is not supportable from the facts of the present case which has led to the eviction decree for possession of the demised premises against the petitioner-tenant and which in turn has resulted in miscarriage of justice which is required to be corrected by exercising powers of this Court under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act. 11. Having regard to the facts of both the counts as aforesaid, the decree insofar as it relates to possession of the demised premises is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree for possession is quashed and set aside by allowing this revision to that extent. This revision is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Decree for arrears of rent passed by the trial Court is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.