JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:-This is the tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 24th December 1985 passed by the 6th Addl. District Judge, Thane, whereby the order of dismissal of suit passed by the trial Court was reversed and eviction of the tenant was ordered. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under : Petitioner is the monthly tenant of respondent No. 1 in respect of a single room on the ground floor of the building known as Vrindavan Bldg. No. 2 situated at Ram Maruti Road, Thane. Respondent No. 1-landlady filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 483 of 1978 against the petitioner for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. Respondent No. 1 averred that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent of Rs. 15/- per month plus Government education cess, Municipal education cess, employment guarantee cess and tree cess all fixed at Rs. 2.50 per month and sanitary charges of Rs. 2.50 per month and water charges of Rs. 5/- per month. Respondent No. 1 further averred that the petitioner was not ready and willing to pay the monthly rent and cess and charges to the landlady and he was in arrears from last March 1976 to 31st December 1977 and that a sum of Rs. 550/- was due and payable by the petitioner to the landlady as arrears of rent, cess, sanitary charges, and water charges. It was further stated that by notice dated 10th January 1978, the landlady terminated the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises in the month of January 1978 and called upon him to deliver possession of the suit premises by the end of the month of February 1978 and to pay the arrears of rent and other charges. It was stated that within one month the entire arrears were not tendered, but only a money order of Rs. 195/- was sent by the petitioner which was accepted by the landlady. According to the landlady since the petitioner failed to raise a dispute of standard rent within one month or to tender the entire arrears in the said period, he is liable to be evicted. 3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner-tenant by his written statement at Exh. 13. According to the landlady since the petitioner failed to raise a dispute of standard rent within one month or to tender the entire arrears in the said period, he is liable to be evicted. 3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner-tenant by his written statement at Exh. 13. The petitioner contended that the estimate for permitted increases was not legal and proper and the same was excessive and illegal. The petitioner further contended that the water charges and sanitary charges claimed by the landlady did not form part of the rent and as such the alleged claim at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month was incorrect and illegal. He claimed that he was always ready and willing to pay the rent of the suit premises. That he had approached the landlady on several occasions to tender the rent, but with a view to create a ground for eviction of the petitioner, she refused to accept the rent. He also contended that the notice of demand was bad-in-law inasmuch as the demand of arrears of rent made therein was excessive and exorbitant. He also contended that the rent claimed by the landlady was not the standard rent of the suit premises and the same was highly excessive and exorbitant as the standard rent of the suit premises could not exceed Rs. 6/- per month. 4. Issues were framed by the learned trial Judge, at Exh. 14 and thereafter the parties led their respective evidence. The learned trial Judge on appraisal of the evidence led before him, came to the conclusion that the agreed rent was Rs. 15/- per month. The trial Court held that the landlady has failed to prove the claim for cess and other charges. Then relying upon the judgment of this Court in (Ganpat v. Motilal)1, reported in A.I.R. 1977, Bombay, 344, the trial Court held that the notice was bad as the demand was excessive and exorbitant. In view of this finding, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the landlady. 5. Against the judgment and order of the trial Court, the landlady had filed Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1983 before the District Court, Thane, which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 24th December 1985. In view of this finding, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the landlady. 5. Against the judgment and order of the trial Court, the landlady had filed Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1983 before the District Court, Thane, which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 24th December 1985. It was held by the Appeal Court that the decision in Ganpat v. Motilal is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Division Bench in (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath Bangh)2, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Bombay, page 212. Relying upon the said judgment, the Appeal Court held that if the tenant wants to say that the demand is untenable in respect of certain amount, he will have an option to pay undisputed amount of rent and give a reply that the rest of the claim was false one. But since the petitioner-tenant had not replied to the landlady's notice and sent only part of rent within one month from the date of receipt of the notice, the case is governed by section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. The Appeal Court also held that there is non-compliance with section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act as the deposits were not made in the Court regularly and therefore, on this count also the decree is liable to be passed against the petitioner. Accordingly the Appeal Court reversed the judgment and order of the trial Court and passed a decree for eviction. 6. Mr. Gala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the tenant was obliged to pay the education cess and other taxes by way of permitted increases which were payable at the end of the year, the case would not attract section 12(3)(a), as part of the rent has become payable annually and not monthly. He further contended that there was nothing on record to show that the landlady had paid the amount of education cess and other taxes and unless payment of taxes to the local authority was established, the landlady had no right to claim the same from the tenant. According to him, the landlady's right to recover the tax arises not at the end of the financial year, but on the date on which she made payment to the local authority. Mr. According to him, the landlady's right to recover the tax arises not at the end of the financial year, but on the date on which she made payment to the local authority. Mr. Gala therefore submitted that the case is attracted by section 12(3)(b) and when the tenant has deposited Rs. 1,295/- which was in excess of the arrears, it cannot be said that there is non-compliance with section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. Mr. Gala pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the tenant was liable to pay sanitary charges and water charges. In the absence of such evidence, the trial Court rightly refused the landlady's claim under the aforesaid heads. However, the Appeal Court without even discussing the evidence of the parties, proceeded on assumption that the admitted rent payable in respect of the suit premises is Rs. 25/ per month. Mr. Gala therefore submitted that no decree can be passed against the tenant either under section 12(3)(a) or section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. He placed heavy reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (Raju Kakara Shetty v. Ramesh Prataprao Shirole)3, reported in 1991(1) S.C.C. page 570. 7. In reply Mr. Sakhardande, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the four ingredients of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act were shown to be satisfied, the Court has no alternative, but to decree the suit. According to him, the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 15/- plus the cess and the charges amounting to Rs. 25/-. It was proved as a fact that the tenant had failed to pay the rent within one month. He had also failed to raise the dispute of standard rent within one month. Therefore, according to Mr. Sakhardande, the case is governed by section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. Mr. Sakhardande also submitted that the argument of Mr. Gala that because education cess was payable by year, part of the rent was not payable by month and therefore, section 12(3)(a) has no application is clearly misconceived for the simple reason that in the instant case the landlady as well as the tenant had by an agreement quantified the amount of Government education cess, Municipal education cess, Employment guarantee cess and tree cess at Rs. 2.50 per month and had not left determination of the amount to fluctuations in tax amount from time to time. 2.50 per month and had not left determination of the amount to fluctuations in tax amount from time to time. Once the quantum in respect of permitted increases is determined by an agreement between the parties, the same form part of the rent and it is not open to contend that notwithstanding the amount of cess payable by year, the tenant is obliged to pay the same only when the landlady pays the tax to the local authorities. Mr. Sakhardande vehemently contended that there is an implied admission in the written statement that the permitted increases were payable monthly. If that is so, the case cannot be taken out of the ambit of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. Mr. Sakhardande also submitted that the tenant has not deposited the entire arrears at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month on the first date of hearing and in any case he was not regular in payment of rent and permitted increases and therefore, there is a clear violation of section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. Thus according to Mr. Sakhardande the case is governed by both sections 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions propounded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant as well as the respondent-landlady. On consideration of the submissions made at the bar and the evidence led by the parties, I am of the opinion that the decree passed by the District Court cannot be sustained. There is no dispute between the parties that the agreed rent is Rs. 15/- per month. By demand notice dated 10th January 1978, the landlady claimed arrears of rent plus Government education cess, Municipal education cess, employment guarantee cess, tree cess at Rs. 2.50 per month, sanitary charges at Rs. 2.50 per month, and water charges at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. There is not an iota of evidence regarding the claim of water charges and sanitary charges. The trial Court has discussed this aspect in detail and came to the conclusion that the landlady has failed to prove that there was an agreement to pay the sanitary charges and water charges. Unfortunately this aspect was completely ignored by the Appeal Court and it proceeded on an erroneous assumption that admittedly the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 25/- per month. Unfortunately this aspect was completely ignored by the Appeal Court and it proceeded on an erroneous assumption that admittedly the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 25/- per month. The trial Court has pointed out that the receipts issued by the landlady pertain to only Rs. 15/ per month. Admittedly there is no written agreement for collection of sanitary charges and water charges. The landlady's son who deposed on her behalf admitted that a common water meter was connected in respect of four to five different premises occupied by the different tenants. He was not sure how many tenants are there on one meter. He admitted that the water bill differs from month to time and it is distributed equally among the tenants. He also admitted that there is no evidence with respect to sanitary charges. Under the circumstances, the claim of the landlady for sanitary charges and water charges was rightly rejected by the trial Court. 9. It is strenuously argued before me by Mr. Sakhardnade that there was an agreement between the parties to pay the cess monthly. He argued that there is an implied admission in the written statement. I have carefully gone through the written statement and I do not find any such admission. On the other hand, it is seen from the evidence of the landlady's witness that the rent receipts were issued only in respect of agreed rent of Rs. 15/- per month. The witness claimed that he collected permitted increases from other tenants and separate noting is made about the collection of permitted increases in the counterfoils of rent receipt, but he was unable to explain as to why he has not produced the counterfoils of rent receipts. The receipts of the cess payments are not produced on record. Thus there is absolutely no material to show that the permitted increases were payable monthly at the rate of Rs. 2.50 paise. In Raju Kakara Shetty v. Ramesh Prataprao Shirole (supra), the Supreme Court held that where the tenant is obliged under the terms of tenancy or by virtue of the statute to pay the tax due to the landlord, since such taxes which form part of the rent are payable annually the case ceases to be governed by section, 12(3)(a) but falls within the purview of section 12(3)(b) of the Act. Thus the case is not covered under section 12(3)(a). 10. Thus the case is not covered under section 12(3)(a). 10. As regards section 12(3)(b) of the Act, Mr. Gala argued that the petitioner had deposited well within time the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and had thereafter deposited the amount of accruing rent with regularity and in fact excess amount has been deposited. Mr. Gala produced a chart showing payments made by the petitioner in the trial Court as well as in the Appeal Court. 11. If we examine the said chart showing the deposits made by the' petitioner in Court, it shows that on the first date of hearing of the suit i.e. 23rd October, 1981, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,295/ whereas the arrears as on that day were only Rs. 980/-. By the time the decree was passed by the trial Court on 24th December, 1985, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 3,550/ as against the arrears of Rs. 1,665/-. Even in appeal, the rent was deposited in advance. Thus, there is compliance with the provisions of section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The District Court was clearly in error in holding that there was non-compliance with section 12(3)(b) of the Act. 12. In the result, the petition succeeds. The judgment and order dated 24th December 1985 passed by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Thane in Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1983 is set aside and the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 24th September 1982 passed in Reg. Civil Suit No. 483 is restored. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.