JUDGMENT : J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The petitioner is the tenant against whom an ejectment decree is passed by both the Courts below on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). 2. The respondents are the landlords original plaintiff who served the petitioner original defendant tenant with a notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act demanding arrears of rent. Notice Ex. 22 is dated 21.2.73, wherein the rent was claimed from 1.2.64 to 31.1.73. Thus the tenant was in arrears for almost 11 years rent. The rent in respect of the demise premises was Rs. 10/- per month. Notice was received by the tenant on 27.2.73, as per the acknowledgement produced Ex. 23 in the Trial Court. No dispute was raised within a period of one month after the receipt of notice Ex. 22 under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The dispute came to be raised for the first time in a suit for possession filed by the landlords. The landlord filed suit for eviction and for recovery of the rent being Rent Suit No. 3825/79. The suit was filed for possession of the demise premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for more than six months. The defendant tenant inter alia contended in the written statement that the rent was not in arrears as the same had been paid to the predecessor of the landlords. Thus according to the case of the defendant, rent was not in arrears. The tenant had also contended that the agreed rent of Rs. 10/- is excessive and therefore standard rent may be fixed. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon appreciation of evidence, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the plea of the defendant-tenant that the rent had been paid to the predecessor of the landlords is false and is raised only with a view to obviate the legal consequence of eviction. The trial Court held that the case is governed by the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, eviction decree came to be passed against the defendant tenant along with the decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The standard rent came to be fixed at Rs. 4/- against the contractual rate of rent of Rs. The trial Court held that the case is governed by the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, eviction decree came to be passed against the defendant tenant along with the decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The standard rent came to be fixed at Rs. 4/- against the contractual rate of rent of Rs. 10/- per month. 4. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree recorded by the trial Court, the original defendant tenant carried the matter before the Appellate Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 321 of 1979. The appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court came to be confirmed. Hence this revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. 5. The only contention which is advanced in this revision on behalf of the petitioner original tenant is that the Trial Court ought to have granted time for payment of arrears of rent as the dispute of standard rent was resolved at the end of the trial. In support of this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Malganbhai Rasulbhai v. Puspavadan M. Desai reported in, 1986 GLH 739 . The ratio of the said decision of this Court is that the time should be granted for payment of a arrears of rent if the standard rent is fixed only at the end of trial by the Trial Court in case of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. So is not the factual scenario in the present revision. The Courts below have consistently and concurrently found that the tenant was liable to be evicted and the landlord was entitled to ejectment decree on the ground of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The view taken by both the Courts below is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In order to attract the rigours of the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent, the material conditions prescribed therein are satisfied in the present case. The tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the notice under Section 12(2). The notice under Section 12(2) was served upon the tenant and is rightly held to be proved to have been served on the tenant in view of the acknowledgement produced at Ex. 23. The tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the notice under Section 12(2). The notice under Section 12(2) was served upon the tenant and is rightly held to be proved to have been served on the tenant in view of the acknowledgement produced at Ex. 23. The dispute that the amount of arrears of rent had been already paid to the predecessor of the landlord has been found to be false on facts. Apart from it being finding of facts, the said conclusion reached by the Courts below is justified. The defendant tenant had not raised any dispute of standard rent within one month from the date receipt of notice. In the circumstances, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. 6. In the opinion of this Court there is no substance in the present revision and therefore it is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief shall stand obviously vacated. Petition dismissed.