R. M. DOSHIT, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocates. ( 2 ) THE petitioners-defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 1982 have preferred the present Revision Application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Rent Act"] against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Panchmahals in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1983. ( 3 ) THE late father of the petitioners-one Shri Indravadan Harilal was the tenant in the suit premises, a residential house bearing Nagar Panchayat House No. 1250, situated at Devgadh Baria, Panchmahals for a monthly rent of Rs. 40/=. The said Indravadan Harilal passed away in or around the year 1975. The petitioners being members of his family residing with him at the time of his death, became statutory tenants of the suit premises. It appears that the said Indravadan Harilal, when died, was in arrears of rent. The accounts of the said Indravadan Harilal was settled between the petitioner no. 2, the son of the said Shri Indravadan Harilal and the respondent landlord under Agreement Exh. 27. The petitioner no. 2 agreed to pay arrears of rent outstanding during the life time of his father and upto 31st July, 1978 to the extent of Rs. 3,216=69p. He paid a sum of Rs. 1,516=69p. and admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,700/= was still outstanding. He also undertook the liability to pay rent from 1st August, 1978. Since 1st August, 1978, the petitioner no. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/= and Rs. 1,100/= on 7th March, 1979 and 24th July, 1980 respectively. Out of the said sum of Rs. 2,100/=, the respondent landlord appropriated a sum of Rs. 1,700/= against the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,700/= and the remaining sum of Rs. 400/= was appropriated against the rent due since 1st August, 1978. The respondent demanded the sum of Rs. 2,220/= under Notice Exh. 41, being the amount of arrears of rent. By a further notice dated 1st December, 1981 Exh. 29, the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 1,200/= as amount of arrears of rent. The said notice Exh. 41 was replied to by the petitioner no. 2 on 13th November, 1981. It was denied that the rent was outstanding as demanded. 41, being the amount of arrears of rent. By a further notice dated 1st December, 1981 Exh. 29, the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 1,200/= as amount of arrears of rent. The said notice Exh. 41 was replied to by the petitioner no. 2 on 13th November, 1981. It was denied that the rent was outstanding as demanded. The petitioners having failed to pay the amount of arrears of rent as demanded, the respondent instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 1982 in the Court of learned Civil Judge [jd] for recovery of the outstanding amount of arrears of rent and for recovery of possession. ( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge was, by his judgment and order dated 10th March, 1982, pleased to dismiss the suit. The learned Civil Judge was pleased to hold that the petitioner no. 2 had paid the above referred sum of Rs. 2,100/= towards the rent due since 1st August, 1978. On the date of the suit, no rent was due and payable by the petitioners. The suit for eviction and recovery of amount of arrears of rent was, therefore, not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 58 of 1982 in the Court of learned District Judge, Panchmahals. ( 5 ) THE learned District Judge was of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 2,100/= paid by the petitioner no. 2 was with respect to the outstanding dues of his deceased father which the petitioner no. 2 had agreed to pay under the above referred Agreement Exh. 27. It has been held that the said outstanding dues were against the arrears of rent and that the petitioner no. 2 had given a promissory note Exh. 27 to pay the said outstanding dues. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the petitioners were in arrears of rent as they did not pay the amount of arrears of rent within one month from the date of the receipt of the suit notice. In absence of dispute as to the standard rent, decree for eviction as envisaged by Section 12 [3] (a) of the Rent Act was inevitable. The learned Judge accordingly passed decree for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Revision Application. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakkar has relied upon the oral evidence of the respondent, the petitioner no. The learned Judge accordingly passed decree for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Revision Application. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakkar has relied upon the oral evidence of the respondent, the petitioner no. 2 and one Shri Babubhai Dhalabhai. He has submitted that the respondent had in his evidence clearly admitted that the deceased Indravadan Harilal used to borrow money from the respondent. Thus, it is evident that the outstanding dues of Rs. 3,216=69p. referred to in agreement Exh. 27 was a personal debt of the deceased Indravadan Harilal, father of the petitioners nos. 2 to 5. The petitioners were under moral obligation to pay the said amount. The petitioner no. 2 had also partly repaid the said amount and had agreed to repay the remaining Rs. 1,700/=. However, for the said outstanding dues, the eviction order cannot be made against the petitioners. ( 7 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Shah has contested the Revision Application. He has submitted that the aforesaid Agreement Exh. 27 and Document Exh. 23 do suggest that the said sum of Rs. 3,216=69p. was the arrears of rent due during the life time of the deceased tenant-Indravadan Harilal. The petitioners being the statutory tenants, were liable to pay the said amount of arrears of rent. Failure to pay the said amount of arrears of rent should entail a decree for eviction. He has also relied upon Accounts Exh. 39 and 40 and submitted that indisputably, the petitioners were in arrears of rent. In support of his argument, Mr. Shah has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Patel Valmik Himatlal and Ors. vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljkbhai (Dead) through LRs. [1998 (2) GLH 736]; of Imdad Ali vs. Keshav Chand and Ors. [ (2003) 4 SCC 635 ]; of Parvinder Singh vs. Renu Gautam and Ors. [ (2004) 4 SCC 794 ]; of Radhabai Bapurao Shelar [deceased by L. Rs. ] and Ors. vs. Trimbak Madhavrao Shirole and Ors. [air 1983 Bombay 303] and of Khimjibhai Meghjibhai Patel and Ors. v. Nasiruddin Z. Shaikh and Ors. [ 1980 (2) GLR 459 ]. ( 8 ) IN the matter of Patel Valmik Himatlal and Ors. [supra], the Honble Supreme Court has discussed the scope and ambit of Section 29 (2) of the Rent Act. vs. Trimbak Madhavrao Shirole and Ors. [air 1983 Bombay 303] and of Khimjibhai Meghjibhai Patel and Ors. v. Nasiruddin Z. Shaikh and Ors. [ 1980 (2) GLR 459 ]. ( 8 ) IN the matter of Patel Valmik Himatlal and Ors. [supra], the Honble Supreme Court has discussed the scope and ambit of Section 29 (2) of the Rent Act. It is held that the revisional power empowers the High Court to correct errors which may make the decision contrary to law and which errors go to the root of the decision but it does not vest the High Court with the power to rehear the matter and reappreciate the evidence. The mere fact that a different view is possible on reappreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In the judgments in the matter of Imdad Ali [supra] and Parvinder Singh [supra], the Honble Supreme Court has held that, "a successor-in-interest of a tenant holds his tenancy right subject to rights and obligations of his predecessor. It is now well settled that a person by reason of inheritance or assignment does not derive any better title than his predecessor, and, thus, the right which the original tenant did not possess cannot be passed on to his successor. " And, ". . Tenancy is a heritable right unless a legal bar operating against heritability is shown to exist. Thus, the one who inherits tenancy rights also inherits the obligations incurred by the deceased tenant along with the rights which he had. It is difficult to accept a proposition that on death of the tenant his heirs inherit only rights and not obligations. If that be so, then the heirs would not be liable to pay any arrears of rent which were not paid by the deceased tenant. " Same is the view expressed in the matter of Khimjibhai Meghjibhai Patel and Ors. [supra]. ( 9 ) ON the face of the Agreement Exh. 27, it is not possible to accept the submission made by Mr. Thakkar that the outstanding dues of the deceased father of the petitioners no. 2 to 5 were of his personal dealings with the respondent and were not attributable to the arrears of rent due. The Agreement Exh. 27 clearly stipulates that a sum of Rs. 3,216=69p. was outstanding and that the petitioner no. 2 having paid the sum of Rs. Thakkar that the outstanding dues of the deceased father of the petitioners no. 2 to 5 were of his personal dealings with the respondent and were not attributable to the arrears of rent due. The Agreement Exh. 27 clearly stipulates that a sum of Rs. 3,216=69p. was outstanding and that the petitioner no. 2 having paid the sum of Rs. 1,569/=, a sum of Rs. 1,700/= remained due and payable towards the arrears of rent. The petitioner no. 2 also agreed to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,700/= within specified time. It is not disputable nor it is disputed that the petitioner no. 2 did pay the sum of Rs. 2,100/=. The said sum of Rs. 2,100/= was appropriated by the respondent against the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,700/= and the rent due since 1st August, 1978. Though the petitioner no. 2 raised a contention that the said sum of Rs. 2,100/= was paid towards the rent due since 1st August, 1978 and not against the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,700/=, he was unable to prove that he had specifically instructed the respondent to appropriate the said sum of Rs. 2,100/= against the rental dues from 1st August, 1978. Mr. Thakkar has also submitted that the petitioner no. 2 was accepted as statutory tenant from 1st August, 1978. He was, therefore, not liable to pay rent for the period prior to 1st August, 1978. The contention is misconceived and is rejected outright. Indisputably, the petitioners did not pay any amount except the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,100/=. As held by the Courts in the aforesaid judgements, the petitioners being statutory tenants were liable to pay the rental dues of their predecessor in interest [deceased Shri Indravadan Harilal]. Considering the dues of the said Indravadan Harilal and the rent due upto 31st July, 1978 to the extent of Rs. 1,700/=, the petitioners were indeed in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the suit. In answer to the suit notice, the petitioners did not pay the rent demanded nor was their dispute as to the standard rent. The decree for eviction was, therefore, inevitable as envisaged by Section 12 [3] (a) of the Rent Act. The lower Appellate Court has thus rightly passed the decree for eviction against the petitioners. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The decree for eviction was, therefore, inevitable as envisaged by Section 12 [3] (a) of the Rent Act. The lower Appellate Court has thus rightly passed the decree for eviction against the petitioners. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) MR. Thakker has submitted that at present the petitioner no. 1 alone has been residing in the suit premises and she be given sometime to vacate the suit premises. The request is granted. The decree passed against the petitioner may not be executed till 30th June, 2005 on condition that the petitioners shall, within three weeks from today, give an undertaking to this Court declaring that the petitioner no. 1 alone is in occupation of the suit premises and that she shall hand-over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 30th June, 2005. That the petitioners shall not induct any person in the suit house and that they shall not transfer, alienate, sublet or part with the possession of the suit house or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever, and that the petitioners shall pay the rent regularly. It is further directed that in the event the petitioners fail to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit house by 30th June, 2005, on and from 1st July, 2005 the petitioners shall be liable to pay mesne profits of Rs. 500/= every month till the date they handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent. ( 12 ) IT should be recorded here that for the purpose of this Revision Application, I have relied upon the copies of the documents produced by the learned advocates. Though the Revision Application was admitted to final hearing as far back as on 22nd December, 1988, the intimation to the Court below was not sent until 6th February, 2004. In response to the said intimation, the District Judge, Godhra has, under communication dated 21st February, 2004 informed this Court that, ". . there was no intimation regarding the present Revision Application filed before the Honble High Court of Gujarat, the file c and file d of both the matters are destroyed as per Civil Manual Chapter XXIV, Para-490". .