R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) PRESENT is a revision petition under Section-29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Rent Act) against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 218 of 1983 on 29th June, 1995 whereunder the learned Appellate Court reversed the judgement and order/decree passed on 29th april, 1983 in H. R. P. Suit No. 135 of 1980, and directed eviction of the applicant. ( 3 ) THE facts for disposal of the present revision petition in nutshell are that the opponent-plaintiff brought a suit against the present applicant-tenant submitting, inter alia, that the applicant was inducted as a tenant on a contractual rent of Rs. 30/- per month exclusive of municipal taxes and other taxes, but, despite a contract between the parties, the tenant was in arrears of rent and despite notice, he did not pay the arrears. The applicant-defendant submitted before the Court that for the similar accommodation, the landlord was charging Rs. 15 per month, therefore, the contractual rent was required to be reduced to Rs. 15/- and as the tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent, an order of eviction could not be passed. He also denied his liability in relation to the municipal and other taxes. It was also contended by the tenant that he having filed an application before the competent forum for fixation of the standard rent, no decree for eviction could be passed. The learned trial Court agreed with the submissions made by the tenant and dismissed the suit with a direction that the tenant would be obliged to pay Rs. 15/- per month towards the rent. Being aggrieved by the same, the landlord took up the matter before the appellate forum, which, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal. Hence, the applicant-tenant is before this Court. ( 4 ) THOUGH the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that as the landlord was charging Rs. 15/- per month as rent from the similarly situated tenants, the Appellate Court was unjustified in issuing a direction of eviction on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. Hence, the applicant-tenant is before this Court. ( 4 ) THOUGH the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that as the landlord was charging Rs. 15/- per month as rent from the similarly situated tenants, the Appellate Court was unjustified in issuing a direction of eviction on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. It was, however, conceded before this Court that the applicants application for fixation of standard rent has been dismissed by the competent Court. ( 5 ) IT is trite law that so long as the standard rent is not fixed by any competent forum, the defendant is obliged and duty bound to deposit the contractual rent. In a case where the contractual rent is not paid to the landlord nor is deposited with the Court after service of the summons or during the pendency of the proceedings, the tenant cannot be allowed to say that he would not pay the contractual rent because his application for fixation of the standard rent was pending consideration. In a case where the tenant deposits the contractual rent and his application for fixation of standard rent is allowed, then, he would only be entitled to what he has paid in excess. If he does not observe the provisions of law, nor deposits the amount nor pays the rent to the landlord, he cannot escape the consequences, which have to follow against the tenant, who is in arrears of rent. ( 6 ) I find no reason to interfere. The revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim order is also vacated. .