Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present Revision Application, the applicant has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 22nd January 2010 passed by the lower Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No. 279 of 2008 as well as the judgment and decree dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by the trial Court in H.R.P. Suit No. 3601 of 2004. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is the original defendant in the suit instituted by the opponent-original plaintiff being H.R.P. Suit No. 3601 of 2004 in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, against the applicant-original defendant, to recover the possession of the suit premises and the arrears of rent as well as mesne profit, and also for a direction to the applicant herein to pay municipal tax, etc. inter alia on the grounds that the applicant was in arrears of rent as well as he did not pay the municipal tax. 2.1 The said suit ultimately came to be decreed partly by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22nd August 2008 and directed the applicant herein to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the opponent-original plaintiff within two months from the date of the said judgment and decree along with other directions. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the applicant-original defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 279 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. The lower Appellate Court after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced on record as well as the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the said appeal confirming the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, present Revision Application. 3. Mr. The lower Appellate Court after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced on record as well as the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the said appeal confirming the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, present Revision Application. 3. Mr. K.B. Paneri, learned Advocate for the applicant-original defendant, has submitted that the Courts below have erred in appreciating the fact that the applicant was never in arrears of rent in view of provisions of Section 12(A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); that the Courts below ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the applicant had sent the arrears of rent to the opponent as per the notice by way of a money order, which was refused by the opponent-original plaintiff; that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Act. In view of aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that present Revision Application may be allowed. 4. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant, averments made in the Revision Application and the documentary evidence produced on record, including the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, it transpires that the Courts below have after going through the pros and cons of the matter decided the matter and came to the impugned conclusion, which is just and proper. It is pertinent to note that the Courts below have rightly observed in the impugned judgment that it is an admitted fact that the applicant-original defendant has not paid the municipal taxes to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation when in the Standard Rent Application, the tax liability was accepted by the applicant-original defendant. Therefore, the opponent-original defendant is not entitled to get protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, looking to the findings of the Courts below it is crystal clear that the applicant had not paid the amount towards municipal taxes and he was in arrears of municipal tax. It is required to be noted that the learned advocate for the applicant has failed to prove before the Courts below that he was not in arrears of municipal tax. 5. In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the impugned conclusion. It is required to be noted that the learned advocate for the applicant has failed to prove before the Courts below that he was not in arrears of municipal tax. 5. In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the impugned conclusion. Over and above the aforesaid reasons, I adopt the reasons assigned by the Courts below and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Courts below. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, present Revision Application deserves to be rejected. 6. For the foregoing reasons, present Revision Application fails and is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. At this stage, learned counsel Mr. Paneri has made a request that the legal heirs of the applicant may be permitted to reside in the suit premises for a further period of two years during which time he would be able to search an alternative suitable accommodation since their family is large. Considering the facts of the case, the applicant is permitted to continue to reside in the suit premises only up to 30th June 2012 on condition that he shall file an Undertaking before this Court within a period of four weeks from today to the effect that he shall vacate the suit premises on or before 30th June, 2012 and shall hand-over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the opponent herein. Until that date, the opponent herein shall not execute the decree. With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. P P P P P