JUDGMENT N.N. MATHUR, J. 1. THIS is plaintiff-landlord's Revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House, Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the judgment and decree dated 2-4-1985 passed by the 4th Extra Asstt. Judge, Rajkot, whereby the learned Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 25-3-1982 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Rajkot, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 2. THE necessary facts giving rise to the present Revision Application are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession stating, inter alia that the suit premises was let out to deceased Nagjibhai Trikambhai on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/- taxes. After his death, the present defendant is in occupation of the said premises. The plaintiffs sought decree for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent. He committed default in payment of rent for 73 months for the period Kartak Sud 1 of S. Y. 2031 to Shravan Vad Amas of S. Y. 2036, i.e. of 73 months. The demand notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was given on 29-7-1980. The defendant neither paid the rent due nor replied the notice. In response to the suit summons, the defendant filed written statement raising number of contentions. He also preferred application under Section 11(2) and (3) of the Act for fixation of standard rent @ Rs. 20/- per month. The learned Judge consolidated the said Misc. Application for fixing standard rent with the main suit. The plaintiff also filed an application below Exh. 20 under Section 11 (4) on which the Trial Judge, by order dated 27-11-1981, directed the defendant to pay Rs. 4,730/- as arrears of rent on or before 14-12-1981, and continue to deposit monthly rent @ Rs. 55/- per month. The defendant deposited Rs. 1,300/- which was short of the amount determined, i.e. Rs. 4,730/-. Thus, the arrears of rent was not paid within one month of the demand notice under Section 12(2), no arrears of rent was deposited on the first date of hearing, i.e. on 24-8-1981, the date on which the issues were framed. The defendant also did not pay arrears of rent as per the order dated 27-11-1981 passed below Exh. 20. In view of this, the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to protection under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. The defendant also did not pay arrears of rent as per the order dated 27-11-1981 passed below Exh. 20. In view of this, the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to protection under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Court decreed the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-tenant by judgment dated 25-3-82. The Court also fixed the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 55/- month. The defendant preferred appeal against the said judgment which was heard by 4th Extra Asstt. Judge, Rajkot. The First Appellate Court found that there was a dispute with respect to the standard rent and the same was not determined as a preliminary issue, and was decided only at the conclusion of the trial. In view of this, it cannot be said that the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. The Court also found that during the pendency of the appeal, the tenant deposited Rs. 6,725/- as the arrears of rent for the period from 14-11-1979 to 21-3-1985. The deposit includes even the time- barred rent. As no amount was due at the time of disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Court held that the tenant was entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. In view of the finding, the learned Extra Asstt. Judge, by judgment dated 2-4-1985, allowed the appeal of the tenant and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Rajkot. Ms. V. P. Shah, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Judge closed over the important fact that the learned Trial Judge on an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 11 (4) of the Act, passed order dated 27-11-1981 below Exh. 20 directing the defendant to pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 4,370/- on or before 14-12-1981 and further continue to deposit a monthly rent @ Rs. 55/- per month, but the defendant has not complied with the said order and as such he is not entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. She submits that the controversy has been settled by a decision of this Court in the case of Rameshchandra Panchal v. Vithalbhai Patel, reported in 1996 (1) GLH 253 . On the other hand, Mr. She submits that the controversy has been settled by a decision of this Court in the case of Rameshchandra Panchal v. Vithalbhai Patel, reported in 1996 (1) GLH 253 . On the other hand, Mr. Bharat G. Jani, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that Section 12(1) of the Act gives protection to the tenant so long as the tenant pays the amount of standard rent and permitted to increase. The defendant-tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent for which he filed application under Section 11 (2) and (3) of the Act for fixation of standard rent. No fault can be found with the tenant if the said application was consolidated with the main suit and the standard rent was fixed only at the conclusion of the trial. As soon as the standard rent was fixed, the tenant deposited the entire rent including the rent for the time-barred period. He further submitted that the application Exh. 20 was filed by the defendant under Section 11 (4) of the Act for the purpose of striking out the defence. He further submitted that the tenant-respondent is entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act which provides for determination of "standard rent" and not interim rent. Determination of interim rent under Section 11 (3) cannot be equated with the word "standard rent" as used in sub-clause (b) of Section 12(3) of the Act. 3. Mr. Bharat Jani further submits that the controversy has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v. Haji Gulamnabi, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1342. He submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble J. N. Bhatt, J. when His Lordship decided Rameshchandra Panchal's case (supra). On facts also he tried to distinguish the said case. 3. HE has also referred to a decision in the case of Rupaben v. Babubhai Deojibhai, reported in 24 GLR 263. In the said case, the Court held that till the standard rent is decided by the Court the tenant is not able to know at what exact rate he must deposit the amount of rent, and in such cases, protection under Section 12 (3)(b) is available. HE has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Nanji Pancha v. Daulal Naraindas, reported in 11 GLR 285. HE has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Nanji Pancha v. Daulal Naraindas, reported in 11 GLR 285. HE has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Harnamsingh v. Gangaram, reported in 9 GLR 323, where this Court has held that it is the duty of the Court even to act suo motu and fix arrears of rent and standard rent. It is further held that even the Appellate Court should exercise suo motu power to give time to the tenant for paying up the difference in rent and in such cases, the Court cannot straightaway pass decree for eviction. He has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Somabhai Kalidas Patel v. Bachubhai Modi, reported 1986 GLH (UJ) 28, wherein the Court held that the word 'regularly' used in Section 12(3)(b) has been interpreted in various decisions of this Court and now there is legislative amendment whereby the requirement of the tenant paying rent regularly has been done away with and if the tenant had paid all arrears of rent before the judgment in the appeal, he is entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act and wherein decree for eviction has been passed against him. 4. WITH a view to appreciate the rival contentions, it will be appropriate to read provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. Relevant provisions are extracted as under : "11(1) In any of the following cases the Court may, upon an application made to it for that purpose, or in any suit or proceedings, fix the standard rent at such amount as, having regard to the provisions of this Act and the circumstances of the case, the Court deems just : (a) to (b) xxx xxx xxx. (2) If there is any dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding the amount of permitted increases the court may determine the amount. (2) If there is any dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding the amount of permitted increases the court may determine the amount. (3) If any application for fixing the standard rent or for determining the permitted increases is made by a tenant who has received a notice from his landlord under sub-section (2) of Section 12, the court shall make an order directing the tenant to deposit in court shall make an order directing the tenant to deposit in court forthwith and thereafter monthly or periodically, such amount of rent or permitted increases as the court considers to be reasonably due to the landlord pending the final decision of the application and a copy of such order shall be served upon the landlord. Out of the amount so deposited, the court may make order for the payment of such reasonable sum to the landlord towards payment of rent or increases due to him, as it thinks fit. If the tenant fails to deposit such amount, his application shall be dismissed. (4) Where at any stage of a suit for recovery of rent whether with or without a claim for possession of the premises, the court is satisfied that the tenant is withholding the rent on the ground that the rent is excessive and standard rent should be fixed, the court shall and in any other case if it appears to the court that it is just and proper to make such an order the court may make an order directing the tenant to deposit in court forthwith such amount of rent as the court considers to be reasonably due, to the landlord. The court may further make an order directing the tenant to deposit in court, monthly or periodically, such amount as it considers proper as interim standard rent during the pendency of the suit. The court may also direct that if the tenant fails to comply with any such order within such time as may be allowed by it, he shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with leave of and conditions as the court may specify." (5) and (6) xxx xxx xxx. The court may also direct that if the tenant fails to comply with any such order within such time as may be allowed by it, he shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with leave of and conditions as the court may specify." (5) and (6) xxx xxx xxx. 12(1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. (2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against a tenant on the ground of non-payment of this standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (IV of 1882) (3)(a) Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in subsection (2), the Court may pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession. (b) In any other case, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit, if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter. (b) In any other case, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit, if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter. (i) Continues to pay or tendered in court such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided; and (ii) pays costs of the suit (4) Pending the disposal of any such suit, the court may out of any amount paid or tendered by the tenant pay to the landlord such amount towards payment of rent or permitted increases due to him as the court thinks fit." Section 11 of the Act is remedial section and permits application be made with regard to any premises which falls within the categories laid down in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Section 11. The court at the instance of the tenant, is required to determine a dispute, fixing standard rent. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 requires the court to forthwith pass order about the amount of deposit or fixation of the interim rent. Section 11 (4) authorisies the court to direct the tenant to deposit such amount of rent forthwith in the court as it considers to be reasonably due to the landlord such amount monthly or periodically as it considers proper as interim standard rent during the pendency of the 'suit. This power can be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit as the opening word of this sub-section says that "at any stage of the suit for recovery of the rent". Section 12(1) lays down that the landlord shall not be entitled to recovery of possession of any premises so long as 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. Sub-section (3) is divided into two parts. Section 12(1) lays down that the landlord shall not be entitled to recovery of possession of any premises so long as 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. Sub-section (3) is divided into two parts. Sub-clause (a) cast an obligation on the court to pass decree for eviction in any suit for recovery of possession where the tenant is in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more and the rent is payable month by month and there is no dispute with regard to standard rent or permitted increases and further that the tenant had neglected to make payment within one month after the notice under Section 12(2). Sub-clause (b) is protective provision. One who seeks protection must qualify for it by satisfying the conditions set out therein. The requirement is that the tenant should deposit the standard rent and permitted increases then due on the first date of hearing of the suit or on or before the other date as the court may fix and further he continues to pay or tender in the court such rent and permitted increase till the suit is finally decided. The Apex Court in Vora Abbhasbhai's case (supra), held that Section 12(3)(b) requires the tenant to pay the standard rent and not the interim rent and for the purpose of that clause the expression "standard rent" may not be equated with "interim rent" specified under Section 11(3). The Court further held that the compliance with an order for payment of interim rent is made by the Explanation of Section 12 conclusive evidence of the readiness and willingness to pay the standard rent, but that by itself is not a ground for holding that the interim rent which may be specified under sub-section (3) of Section 11 is standard rent fixed under sub-section (1) of Section 11. In the said case, the plaintiff gave notice to the tenant calling upon him to deliver possession of the suit premises alleging that he had failed to pay the rent for more than six months. The said notice dated 1-12-1996 was promptly replied on 7-12-1996 stating that he has paid the rent at the agreed rate till April 1956. In the said case, the plaintiff gave notice to the tenant calling upon him to deliver possession of the suit premises alleging that he had failed to pay the rent for more than six months. The said notice dated 1-12-1996 was promptly replied on 7-12-1996 stating that he has paid the rent at the agreed rate till April 1956. On January 5, 1957, the defendant filed an application under Section 11 (1) of the Act for taking the rent of the premises. He also applied for order under Section 11 (3) specifying the interim rent. He also informed the plaintiff about the application moved by him and expressed the willingness to pay such amount as the Court may order. He also deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- to the credit of the plaintiff. On January 27, 1957, the plaintiff instituted a suit for a decree in ejectment on the ground of non-payment. The Court on the application of the tenant filed under Sections 11(1) and 11(3) directed the defendant to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs. 517- per month within 15 days. In pursuant to the said order, the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- on 2-3-1956. The Court did not finally disposed of the defendant's application filed under Section 11 (1) but the proceedings were amalgamated with the suit as the enquiry about the proper standard rent had also to be made in the suit. On 28-3-1956, the court determined the standard rent @ Rs. 50/- per month, taking into account the agreed aggregate amount deposited. The Court held that the defendant-tenant was not liable to be evicted for non-payment of standard rent as he succeeded in establishing that he was ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increase within the meaning of Section 12(1) of the Act. In Appeal filed by the plaintiff, the Court held that the proper standard rent of the premises was Rs. 70/- per month. However, the learned Judge held that pursuant to the order of the Court of the first instance, the interim rent as ordered, the defendant has complied with the requirement of Section 12(3)(b) and that he had shown willingness and readiness to pay the amount of standard rent and permitted increase. The District Judge, accordingly confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. The District Judge, accordingly confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. The High Court reversed the decree in Revision on the ground that the tenant had not deposited the amount of standard rent at the rate determined by the Court of District Judge and as such it cannot be said that he was ready and willing to pay the standard rent, and, therefore, he was not entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. It is clear that the Supreme Court, in Vora Abbasbhai's case (supra) was not dealing with the situation where the landlord files application under Section 11 (4) of the Act. It is significant to notice that while the expression "interim standard rent" has been used under Section 11 (4), no such expression has been used under Section 11 (3). Therefore, the ratio in Vora Abbasbhai 's case (supra) that the expression of standard rent will not be equated with the expression interim standard rent specified under Section 11 (3) does not apply to the case where the court has fixed the interim standard rent under Section 11(4) of the Act. Thus, in my view, the ratio laid down in Vora Abbasbhai's case (supra) does not apply to the present case. 5. MR. Jani, learned Advocate referred a decision in the case of Rupaben v. Babubhai Deojibhal (supra), wherein it is held that till the standard rent is decided by the Court, the tenant is not able to know at what exact rate, the amount he may deposit the rent. Thus, the Court has not fixed the standard rent on application under Section 11 (1) and postpone the same till final decision of the suit at the protection under Section 12(3)(b) was available to the tenant. In the said case, there was no application under Section 11(4) and as such there was no direction by the Court fixing interim standard rent. Thus, this case is of no assistance to the respondent-tenant. 6. IN Somabhai Kalidas Patel's case (supra), on the facts of the case, the Court held that the -tenant was not in arrears of rent as he had deposited all the rent in the Trial Court before the judgment. Thus, this case is of no assistance to the respondent-tenant. 6. IN Somabhai Kalidas Patel's case (supra), on the facts of the case, the Court held that the -tenant was not in arrears of rent as he had deposited all the rent in the Trial Court before the judgment. IN the said case, the word "regularly" as employed in Section 12(3)(b) prior to amendment, came up for interpretation, the Court found that in view of the amendment, the requirement of the tenant paying rent regularly has been complied with. This case has no application on the present case. In Nanji Pancha's case (supra), Division Bench of this Court held that in case where there is no dispute of standard rent, the tenant would not be in a position to pay or tender the standard rent on the first date of hearing and fixing another date by the court for payment or tender would be ineffectual until the standard rent is fixed. The Court observed that the tenant has got two opportunities ? either to comply with the explanation by getting interim rent fixed by moving the Court for the purpose or he may move the Court for resolving this dispute at the earlier date to enable him to make the necessary payment for complying with the statutory provisions. The Court also observed that such an application may be made by the tenant or landlord or even the Court suo motu extend the date after the first date of hearing. In my view, this authority more helps the plaintiff than the tenant. The tenant cannot rest contend only by moving application under Sections 11 (1) and 11 (3) of the Act. He must also ask the Court to resolve the dispute at the earliest date. If such a step is not taken by the tenant, steps can be taken by the landlord or even the Court may do so suo motu. In the present case, when the application under Sections 11 (10) and 11 (3) was consolidated with the main suit, application was filed by the landlord under Section 11 (4) for fixing the interim standard rent and to strike out the defence of the tenant. The Court accordingly determined the interim standard rent and directed to pay arrears of rent due and further continue to pay rent fixed month by month. 7. The Court accordingly determined the interim standard rent and directed to pay arrears of rent due and further continue to pay rent fixed month by month. 7. IN the case of Harmansingh Lalsingh's case (supra), the Court held that it is the duty of the Court suo motu to fix the payment of rent on the basis of standard rent so fixed. This case also is of no assistance to the respondent as there was no situation where application was made by the plaintiff for fixing the interim standard rent. 8. IN the case of Rameshchandra Panchal (supra) the Court held that the landlord can request the Court for fixation of interim rent under Section 11 (4). On failure to deposit such rent regularly before the Court, the tenant will not be entitled protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. IN the said case the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months. The plaintiff gave notice under Section 12(2) on 5-3-1975. The notice was replied on 4-4-1975. The tenant also filed application under Section 11 (1) and 11 (3) of the Act. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed suit for eviction on the ground of payment of arrears of rent. The Trial Court consolidated the application filed under Section 11 (1) and 11 (3) along with the main suit. On 3-2-1978, the application was filed by the plaintiff under Section 11 (4) on which on 7-4-1978, the Court fixed interim standard rent and directed for payment of arrears of rent and further to pay fixed monthly rent which was not complied with. A contention was raised that the order of the Court fixing standard rent and directly the tenant thereafter to pay regularly the rent under Section 11 (4) cannot be considered to judge readiness and willingness of the tenant with reference to provisions of Section 12(3)(b). The Court after considering the entire scheme of the provisions of the act and various cases, held that the interim rent could be fixed under Section 11(3) as well as 11 (4) and order of payment of interim rent and to continue interim rent is required to be considered and observed for the purpose of securing protective umbrella under Section 12(3)(b). The Court also held that if the tenant fails to pay arrears of rent as per the interim order on the first date of hearing of the suit, he will not be entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b). Further failure to pay rent regularly as per the interim rent during the proceedings will also disqualify the tenant from getting protection under Section 12(3)(b). IN the present case, the learned Judge, noticing the fact that Exhibit below 20 by the order dated 27-11-1981, directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent @ Rs. 55/- per month and also deposited Rs. 4,730/- as arrears of rent before 14-12-1981. The tenant deposited Rs. 1,500/- which was short of the amount directed by the Trial Court. Thus, the tenant has not complied with the conditions of Section 12(3)(b) in depositing of the rent on the first date of hearing or on the date fixed by the Court. Even if the rent has subsequently been paid, if the rent due has not been deposited on the date fixed by the Court, the tenant would not be entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b). IN view of this, in my view, the First Appellate Court has committed error in extending protection to the defendant-tenant under the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, this Civil Revision Application is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 2-4-1985 passed by the 4th Extra Asstt. Judge, Rajkot is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Rajkot dated 25-3-1982 is restored. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. MR. B. G. Jani, learned Advocate submits that the operation of this order may be stayed for a period of 8 weeks as the respondent intends to approach the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court. Considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to stay the operation of the order of this Court. However, the defendant-respondent is given 8 weeks' time to vacate the suit premises provided he furnishes an undertaking that he will vacate the suit premises by 30th April 1998 and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. However, the defendant-respondent is given 8 weeks' time to vacate the suit premises provided he furnishes an undertaking that he will vacate the suit premises by 30th April 1998 and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. He will also furnish undertaking to the effect that he will not induct any person or persons in the suit premises creating any rights in favour of the newly inducted person/s either by way of sale or in any manner whatsoever. He will also undertake to pay arrears of rent if any, due within a period of two weeks from today and further continue to pay the mesne profit @ Rs. 55/- per month. Such undertakings shall be submitted within a period of two weeks.