J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the eviction decree passed by the trial court on 28. 1. 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal no. 86 of 1976 by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 23 (2) of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (the Rent Act for short ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner is original defendant no. 1 and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed HRP suit no. 2975 of 1970 against the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent sub-letting and permanent construction. The trial court passed the decree for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12 of the Rent Act. Decree was not required to be passed on the ground of permanent construction in the demised premises as the said ground was not pressed. The trial court decided against the plaintiff-landlords insofar as the ground the sub-letting was concerned. ( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied by passing of the ejection decree on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12 (3) (b) the tenant carried the matter further by filing Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1976 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court Ahmedabad. The appeal came to be dismissed with costs. The Appellate Bench confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court with little modifications on 21. 12. 1978. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Appellate Bench the tenant has come before this court by filing this revision questioning its legality and validity under Section 29 (2) of the Rent Act. ( 4 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-defendant. Mr. Gandhi has contended that the courts below have committed serious error in passing the ejection decree on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12 (3) (b) in that he has contended that demand of Rs. 1543. 38 towards municipal taxes by the landlords and claimed by them during the course of the suit and also an amount of Rs. 254. 10 paid and demanded by the landlords during the pendency of the suit should not have been considered towards the arrears of rent and permitted increases as there was no such demand in the notice and no such claim in the suit. 254. 10 paid and demanded by the landlords during the pendency of the suit should not have been considered towards the arrears of rent and permitted increases as there was no such demand in the notice and no such claim in the suit. Prima facie this submission may appear to be subtle but not sound in the facts of the present case. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid contention is strongly resisted by the learned Advocate Mr. G. D. Bhatt for the plaintiff-landlords. He has drawn attention of this court to the fact that an order was passed below Ex. 27 by the trial court on 25. 1. 1973 below application of the landlord under Section 11 (4) of the Rent Act. It is very clear from the aforesaid order that the tenant was directed by the court to pay standard rent and permitted increases and future taxes and education case till the disposal of the suit. Mr. Bhatt also pointed out that there is no dispute of standard rent as the standard rent was fixed by consent in the earlier litigation. Regular Civil Suit no. 2253 of 1965 came to be filed for eviction wherein compromise was recorded on 30. 12. 1965. Standard rent was fixed at Rs. 44/- per month in repsect of the demised premises which consisted of land and shop which were taken on rent by the husband of the petitioner-tenant for running a hotel in the name and style of Shakti Hotel/it is very clear from the consent decree Ex. 81 that the tenant was permitted for sub-letting the premises while fixing standard rent at Rs. 44/- per month by consent. The amount of standard rent of Rs. 44/- came to be fixed exclusive of municipal taxes education cess and any other liability of tax payable by the tenant. This aspect is not also disputed. In view of the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that amount of Rs. 1543. 38 towards municipal taxes paid by the landlords and demanded by them in the course of the proceedings before the trial court is required to be excluded. Similarly it cannot also be contended that the amount of Rs. 254. This aspect is not also disputed. In view of the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that amount of Rs. 1543. 38 towards municipal taxes paid by the landlords and demanded by them in the course of the proceedings before the trial court is required to be excluded. Similarly it cannot also be contended that the amount of Rs. 254. 10 paid by the landlord towards education cess and demanded by the landlords during the course of pendency of the suit is required to be excluded as per the terms and conditions between the parties in the earlier litigation. Amount of municipal taxes education cess and any other taxes payable by the tenant are required to be paid by the tenant. The landlords were compelled to pay and in fact they discharged the duty of the tenant in paying taxes and education cess. Though it was the duty of the tenant to pay the Municipal Taxes and education cess the landlords had to pay the same. Obviously therefore they are entitled to recover them from the tenant. The total came to Rs. 1797. 48 towards the municipal taxes and education cess paid by the landlords during the pendency of the proceedings. The said amount was required to be paid by the tenant pursuant to the terms and conditions incorporated in the consent decree. However the tenant failed to pay the said amount during the pendency of the suit and the tenant was obliged by the landlords to make payment and therefore they are entitled to recover the same from the tenant in the proceedings before the trial court. Apart from that there was a direction from the court by virtue of an order recorded by the trial court below Ex. 27 in the application under Section 11 of the Rent Act passed on 30. 12. 1965. It was obligatory for the tenant to deposit the amount of rent taxes and education cess then due and to pay future taxes and education cess. It becomes therefore clear that there was non-compliance of the direction of the trial court. The landlords however paid the amount before the concerned Authorities. 12. 1965. It was obligatory for the tenant to deposit the amount of rent taxes and education cess then due and to pay future taxes and education cess. It becomes therefore clear that there was non-compliance of the direction of the trial court. The landlords however paid the amount before the concerned Authorities. Now how can it be contended that payment which was made by the landlords which otherwise was required to be made by the tenant under the terms and conditions and under the direction of the court cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of arrears of rent and permitted increases ? The obvious answer would be in the negative. It is got to be considered while computing the arrears of rent payable and arrears paid by the tenant during the course of trial as well as in the appeal. The courts below have rightly held that the said amount was required to be considered and considering the said amount there were several defaults. The tenant made defaults in making payment as required under the provisions of Section 12 (3) (b ). The tenant also failed to pay the amount of rent and permitted increases as and when they became payable. ( 6 ) THE courts below have found that the tenant has committed defaults. She was negligent and therefore she is not entitled to protection of Section 12 (3) (b ). The trial court has elaborately mentioned defaults made by the tenant in para 10 of the judgment. Likewise the appellate bench has also elaborately dealt with the defaults made by the tenant during the pendency of the suit as well as the appeal in para 14 of the judgment. Both the courts have taken a concurrent and consistent view that the tenant is not entitled to protection of Section 12 (3) (b) in the circumstances of the present case. The views and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the trial court while passing the ejection decree on the ground of Section 12 (3) (b) could not be said to be in any way erroneous illegal or perverse requiring interference of this court. The contention that the courts below should not have taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 1797. The views and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the trial court while passing the ejection decree on the ground of Section 12 (3) (b) could not be said to be in any way erroneous illegal or perverse requiring interference of this court. The contention that the courts below should not have taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 1797. 48 demanded by the landlords towards payment of municipal taxes and education cess is without any merit in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in general and in light of the terms and conditions of the consent decree Ex. 81 and in light of the specific order passed by the trial court below Ex. 27 in particular. Provisions of Section 12 (3) (b) would be applicable in cases; (I)WHERE arrears of rent were for less than six months or (II) where rent may be payable yearly quarterly weekly or daily; or (III) where dispute about standard rent or permitted increases had been raised by an application for that purpose within one month from the receipt of notice for demand given pursuant to the provisions under Section 12 (2) of the Rent Act or (IV) where there was dispute between the parties regarding amount of arrears of rent and dispute about education cess. ( 7 ) IN light of the aforesaid factual scenario while considering in the background of the settled proposition of law it becomes amply clear that the defendant-tenant was negligent in making payment towards the arrears of rent. She was also indifferent to the direction passed by the court below at Ex. 27 and she committed defaults in making regular payment during the course of the suit as well as the appeal. In the circumstances apart from non- compliance of the direction of the court below Ex. 27 the defendent -tenant remained grossly negligent and indifferent to her duty of pay rent during the course of the suit as well as the appeal with the result that she has lost right to claim protection of Section 12 (3) (b ). It is very clear from the facts of the present case that the defendant-tenant did not comply with the first condition viz to pay the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases then due on the first day of hearing viz. the date of issues. It is very clear from the facts of the present case that the defendant-tenant did not comply with the first condition viz to pay the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases then due on the first day of hearing viz. the date of issues. On the date of issue the tenant was in arrears of 76 months x Rs. 44 = Rs. 3344/ -. She was in arrears of permitted increases to the extent of Rs. 349. 58. Thus the defendant failed to make payment of full amount of arrears of standard rent and permitted increases on the first date of hearing i. e. on the date when the issue were settled and thereafter also during the pendency of the suit and the appeal various defaults are committed which are elaborately described in para 10 of the judgment of the trial court and para 14 of the judgment of the appellate court. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the appeal the tenant failed to obtain stay order against execution of the decree for possession with the results that the decree for possession came to be executed during the pendency of the appeal. Thus the petitioner-tenant is not had in possession of the demises premises. ( 8 ) THE courts below have consistently and concurrently rightly held that the defendant-tenant is liable for ejectment on the ground of Section 12 (3) (b) and the view taken by the courts below is required to be confirmed. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances this court has no hesitation in finding that the present revision application merits straightway rejection. Accordingly it is rejected with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief shall stand vacated. Rule Discharged. .