JUDGMENT 1. The respondents, who are original plaintiffs, had filed R.A.E.Suit No.96/326 of 1982 against the defendant Court who is the applicant before this Court, for eviction from the suit premises on several grounds. It was contended that the suit shop No. 2 situated at Municipal R Ward No.4648 (I)-79 Sharada Estate, L.T.Road, Borivali (West) Mumbai-92 belonged to the plaintiffs. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. She was irregular in payment of rent and has fallen in arrears of rent since 1st March, 1978. The agreed rent was Rs.35/-. On 6th September, 1980 a notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant through their advocate terminating the tenancy and also calling upon the defendant to pay the amount of Rs.1045.22 towards arrears of rent with permitted increases. The said notice was served but, the defendant failed to comply with the same and to make the payment of arrears of rent and the permitted increases. On 25th January, 1982 the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction. An exparte decree was passed against the defendant on 8th December, 1982. However, the defendant had taken out Misc.Notice No.22 of 1983 on 22nd December, 1982 to set aside the exparte decree passed against her. That decree was set aside on 5th December, 1987 and the suit was restored to file with a direction to the defendant to pay arrears of rent and to pay costs. The defendant filed the written statement on 23rd February, 1988 and contested the suit. She admitted that she was a tenant but, denied that she was irregular in payment of rent and that she was in arrears of rent since 1st March, 1978. She also admitted to have received notice dated 6th September, 1980 but, denied that she was not ready and willing to pay arrears of rent. According to her, the termination of her tenancy was illegal and the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree for eviction. According to her, the plaintiffs were accepting rent and thus she was entitled to protection under section 12 (3 of the Bombay Rent Act as amended in 1987. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the contention of the defendant and claim and held that the defendant had failed to pay arrears of rent inspite of service of notice and had failed to pay the arrears within the stipulated period. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the contention of the defendant and claim and held that the defendant had failed to pay arrears of rent inspite of service of notice and had failed to pay the arrears within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the decree for eviction came to be passed. The defendant preferred an Appeal bearing No. 130 of 2002. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Hence, this Revision Application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. There is no dispute that the defendant had not paid rent from 1st March, 1978 and was in arrears when notice was issued to her on 6th September, 1980. The notice was served and inspite of that she had not paid the arrears of rent and the permitted increases. An exparte decree was passed in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. However, that decree was set aside and the matter was restored to file. The defendant had taken out Misc.Notice No.22 of 1983 on 22nd December, 1982 for setting aside the exparte decree and at that time, the defendant had deposited the arrears of rent till then. Misc.Notice No.22 of 1983 taken out by the defendant was made absolute and the ex parte decree was set aside by an order dated 5th December, 1987 with the condition that she should pay all the arrears with costs of Rs.75/-. Admittedly, the defendant had not made any payment from December, 1982 to December, 1987 and she was again in arrears for about 5 years. Though the arrears were deposited after order dated 5th December, 1987, after that payment again, the defendant did not make any payment of rent or the permitted increases and she deposited the arrears from January, 1988 in 2002 when the decree for eviction was finally passed by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant/applicant vehemently contended that after the order of setting aside the ex parte decree was passed, the defendant had filed the written statement and issues came to be framed on 11th September, 1996 and that should be treated as the first date of hearing in the suit. According to him, the defendant had already paid the arrears of rent which were due till the date of filing of the suit, in 1982 itself, and thus the payment was made before the first date of hearing of the suit. According to him, the defendant had already paid the arrears of rent which were due till the date of filing of the suit, in 1982 itself, and thus the payment was made before the first date of hearing of the suit. Hence, the defendant was protected under section 12 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, as amended in 1987. According to him, the Courts below committed an error in holding that the case of the defendant is covered under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act as it stood prior to amendment of 1987. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs however, supported the view taken by the Courts below and relied upon several authorities in support of the contention that because the suit was filed prior to the Amendment of 1987, the case would be covered under section 12 (3) (a) and not under section 12 (3) of the Rent Act as amended in 1987. 5. In view of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the defendant, the only question of law which is involved in the present matter is whether the case of the defendant will be covered by section 12 (3) (a) as it stood prior to 1987 amendment or it will be covered by section 12 (3) as amended in 1987. Therefore, it will be useful to quote the relevant provisions of the Act. 6. The relevant portion of section 12, as it stood prior to amendment of 1987, reads as follows 12. No ejectment ordinarily to be made if tenant pays or is readyand willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases : (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, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act. (2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non payment of the 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. 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 sub section (2) the Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any 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 continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court. Explanation 1: In any case where there is a dispute as to the amount of standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under this Act the tenant shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such amount if, before the expiry of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), he makes an application to the Court under sub-section (3) of section 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by the Court. " 7. " 7. The sub-section (3) was amended by Amendment Act 18 of 1987 and after the amendment sub-section (3) reads as follows : " No decree for eviction shall be passed by the Court in any suit for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of standard rent and permitted increases 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 together with simple interest on the amount of arrears of such standard rent and permitted increase at the rate of nine per cent, per annum; and thereafter continues to pay or tenders in Court regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays cost of the suit as directed by the Court. " Provided that, the relief provided under this sub-section shall not be available to a tenant to whom relief against forfeiture was given in any two suits previously instituted by the landlord against such tenant. 8. From this, it is clear that as long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the amount of standard rent and permitted increases and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, the landlord would not be entitled to recovery of possession of the premises. The landlord also cannot institute a suit for eviction against a tenant on the ground of non-payment of standard rent or permitted increases until expiration of one month next after service of notice in writing to the tenant making the demand of the same. It means that if within one month after service of notice the tenant makes payment of the arrears, the landlord cannot file a suit for eviction. It means that if within one month after service of notice the tenant makes payment of the arrears, the landlord cannot file a suit for eviction. Under sub-section 3 (a), as it stood before the amendment, the Court was bound to pass a decree for eviction in the suit for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord and against the tenant if the following conditions were satisfied :- (i) the rent was payable by month; (ii) there was no dispute regarding amount of standard rent or permitted increases; (iii) the rent or permitted increased were in arrears for a period of 6 months or more ; (iv) the tenant had neglected to make the payment until expiration of the period of one month after service of notice. 9. In any other case, the decree for eviction could not be passed if on the first date 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 continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such a rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided. As per explanation I, the tenant shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such rent if before the expiry of period of one month after notice, he disputes the amount of standard rent or permitted increases and makes an application to the Court under sction 11 (3) for fixation of the standard rent and thereafter he pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases as may be specified in the order made by the Court under section 11. 10. Admittedly, after service of notice dated 6th September, 1980 the defendant had not disputed the standard rent or permitted increases and had also not filed any application under section 11 (3) of the Rent Act in the Court for fixation of the standard rent or permitted increases. No such application was made at any time thereafter also. Therefore, it is clear that there was no dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases. Also there is no dispute that the rent was to be paid monthly. Also there is no dispute that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months when the said notice was served on her. Therefore, it is clear that there was no dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases. Also there is no dispute that the rent was to be paid monthly. Also there is no dispute that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months when the said notice was served on her. It is admitted by her that arrears of rent from 1st March 1978 till December, 1982 were deposited by her in Court while making an application for setting aside the exparte decree. From these facts, it is also clear that she had neglected to pay arrears of rent until expiration of period of one month after service of notice on her. Thus, all the conditions prescribed under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of 1987, were satisfied. In view of satisfaction of all the four conditions, the law mandates the Court to pass a decree for eviction against the defendant. In view of these circumstances, it is clear that section 12 (3) (b) would not have been applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Learned counsel for the defendant vehemently contended that the section 12 (3) as amended in 1987 will be applicable because prior to the first day of hearing the payment was made. By amendment Act of 1987 sub-section (3) clauses (a) and (b) of section 12 were substituted by amended sub-section 2 which is quoted above. In view of the amendment, the difference between the erstwhile two categories of the cases falling under sub-section 3 (a) and sub-section 3 (b) was brought to an end and a common provision was made that the decree for eviction shall not be passed in any suit for recovery of possession on the ground of non-payment of standard rent and permitted increases if following conditions are satisfied : (a) On the first date 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 together with simple interest at such rate at 9% p.a. (b) and thereafter the tenant continues to pay or tenders in Court regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided ; (c) and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court. Thus, after this amendment it was irrelevant whether there was any dispute about standard rent or not ? Whether the rent was payable monthly or otherwise and for how much period the rent and permitted increases were in arrears. 12. Therefore, it will be necessary to find out whether the present case will be governed by section 12 (3) (a) as it stood prior to 1987 amendment or by the amended section 12 (3). 13. In PIROJA M.MEHTA vs.DR.HAMBAI JAMSHEDJI CAMA, 1988 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 334, the learned Single Judge of this Court had an opportunity to analyse the legal position in this respect. In that matter, the Rent Act as it stood in 1944 and as it was re-enacted in 1947 and several amendments which were made from time to time were considered. This Court had rejected the contention that sub-section 3 of section 12 as amended in 1987, is procedural and not substantial and also held that the amended provisions would be applicable only to the suits which would be filed after the said amendment came into force. The learned Judge observed as follows : 14. " The argument that sub-section (3) of section 12, as amended, is procedural is not acceptable. Sub-section (3) creates rights and liabilities on the parties to a suit. The original sub-sections (3) (a) and (b) also dealt with the right that would accrue to a landlord and the liability that would attach itself to the tenant. Since the sub-section whether before or after the amendment of 1987, provided for rights and liabilities of the parties, it could not be legitimately suggested that sub-section (3) is procedural. The provision relates to substantive rights and obligations of the parties. If this is so, in accordance with the well-established rules of interpretation of statutes, it should be held that the amended sub-section (3) is prospective and not retrospective. This is on the basis of the clear words in the provision itself. It is not suggested that contrary would be the case by necessary implication." 14. After discussion of several authorities referred therein the learned Judge observed in para 35 as follows : 35. " Three types of suits can be contemplated. One is the suit which was filed prior to the amendment and the first day of hearing in that suit has gone by. After discussion of several authorities referred therein the learned Judge observed in para 35 as follows : 35. " Three types of suits can be contemplated. One is the suit which was filed prior to the amendment and the first day of hearing in that suit has gone by. Secondly, there can be a suit which has been filed before the amendment but, the first day of hearing in that suit is to arrive after the amendment. Then there is the third type of suit which has been filed after the amendment and obviously its first day of hearing will arrive after the amendment. In my opinion, looking to the entire scheme of the Act and the intention of the legislature, as reflected in the words of section 12 (3) it is the first two types of suits which are not covered by the amended section. It is only the third type of suits that are covered by the amendment. I venture to suggest this interpretation because it can be reasonably assumed that the legislature did not intend to make a further classification between the suits which were filed before the amendment. Moreover, once a suit has been filed on the basis of the steps taken by the landlord prior to the amendment, a vested right has accrued to him. Some liability is also fastened to the tenant. This right and this liability are not intended to be disturbed by the amendment. Further, there is the rule of law which says that the rights and liabilities of the parties as to be worked out on the law prevailing at the time of the suit, subject, of course to any exception that may be made by the legislature either by express words or by necessary implication. That is not so in the present case. " 40 " From the aforesaid discussion, the following propositions emerge: (1) Section 12 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act, as amended by Maharashtra Act No.XVIII of 1987, is not retrospective but is prospective. (2) All the suits which have been filed prior to 1st October 1987 are to be governed by the law prevailing at the time of institution of the suit namely section 12 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act before its amendment by Maharashtra Act No.XVIII of 1987. (2) All the suits which have been filed prior to 1st October 1987 are to be governed by the law prevailing at the time of institution of the suit namely section 12 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act before its amendment by Maharashtra Act No.XVIII of 1987. (3) All suits for the recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of rent filed on or after 1st October 1987 will be governed by the provisions of sections 12 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act, as amended by Maharashtra Act No.XVIII of 1987, irrespective of whether the notice under section 12 (2) was given before or after the said date. " This legal position is now well settled and has been followed in a number of cases by this Court including in NARAYAN GANPAT BHOITE VS. SMT.RAMPYARI SUCHITRAM GUPTA 2001 (3) MH.L.J. 234. 15. No authority to the contrary has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the defendant/applicant. Thus, it is the settled position of law that if the suit was filed by the landlord non- for eviction on the ground of nonpayment payment of rent and the permitted increases prior to 1987 amendment, the case will be governed by the unamended sub-section 3 (a) and if the suit was filed after the said amendment, it would be covered and governed by the amended sub-section (3). 16. In the present case, as pointed out above, the suit was filed in 1982 and therefore the case will be governed by the unamended provisions of sub-section 3 (a) of section 12. The amended sub-section 3 of section 12 cannot be applied to the present case. In view of this position, it is difficult to find any fault with the decree for eviction passed by the Courts below. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendant/applicant makes a request that the defendant may be granted six months time to vacate the premises. To this, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has no objection. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendant/applicant makes a request that the defendant may be granted six months time to vacate the premises. To this, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has no objection. In view of this, the decree for eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months from this date subject to the defendant/applicant filing an undertaking before this Court within a period of two weeks from today that she shall vacate the suit premises and shall put the plaintiffs in peaceful possession thereof without any objection or obstruction within the stipulated period and shall also clear all the dues towards rent/compensation. In case she fails to file such an undertaking within the stipulated period, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to execute the decree any time.