Judgment : This Revision Application takes an exception to the concurrent decrees passed by the Court of Small Causes as well as the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes in a suit for eviction filed by the Respondents. The Respondents are the landlords in respect of the suit premises and late Dhirajlal Harjivan Dharamsi, the predecessor of the Applicants, was the tenant. 2. The Respondents landlords issued a notice of demand dated 22nd August, 1998 to the predecessor of the Applicants calling upon him to pay arrears of rent from June, 1992 to August, 1998. It was alleged that the notice was duly served to the predecessor of the Applicants. It was pointed out that an Application for fixation of standard rent was filed by the predecessor of the Applicants. The suit for eviction was filed as compliance with the demand notice was not made. The suit was filed on the grounds of arrears of rent, carrying out illegal and unauthorised construction and causing nuisance and annoyance. The Applicants contested the suit by filing a Written Statement. It was contended that the Applicants were always ready and willing to pay the rent. 3. The Trial Court held that the predecessor of the Applicants was in arrears of rent from June, 1992 and has failed and neglected to pay the amount of arrears of rent within a period of one month from the date of service of the notice. The Trial Court found that though an Application for fixation of the standard rent was made by the deceased tenant and though the interim rent was fixed on 23rd September, 1998, the said Application was dismissed in default. The Trial Court observed that the compliance was not made by regularly depositing the rent. Therefore, the Trial Court proceeded to pass a decree on the ground of arrears of rent. The Trial Court negatived the other grounds of eviction. In an Appeal preferred by the Applicants, the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes has confirmed the decree by observing that even during the pendency of the proceedings, the rent amount was not deposited. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants was permitted to make submissions on the basis of the grounds taken in the Revision Application and also on the grounds sought to be incorporated by Civil Application No.466 of 2011 by amending the written statement. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants was permitted to make submissions on the basis of the grounds taken in the Revision Application and also on the grounds sought to be incorporated by Civil Application No.466 of 2011 by amending the written statement. 5. The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants is that within one month from the date of service of notice of demand, the original tenant (predecessor of the Applicants) filed an application for fixation of standard rent and in the said Application, an order was passed directing the Applicants to pay interim rent. He submitted that the Applicants were not in arrears of rent when the suit was filed and, therefore, the decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") cannot be passed. He invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 27th January, 2004 passed by the learned Trial Judge pending the suit. He pointed out that by the said order, the Applicants were permitted to make compliance with the provision of Section 12(3) of the said Act by depositing the arrears of rent till 31st January, 2004 with simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum on or before 9th February, 2004. He submitted that the Applicants were directed to pay costs of the suit as quantified by the office of the Trial Court on or before 9th February, 2004. He pointed out that the said order was substantially complied with by the Applicants. He relied upon the certified copies issued by the Court of Small Causes of the ledgers maintained by it disclosing the amounts deposited by the Applicants in the standard rent application as well as in the suit. He submitted that the aforesaid order of the Court of Small Causes dated 27th January, 2004 was confirmed in the Revision Application preferred by the Applicants. He submitted that even assuming that the amount of costs of the suit was paid during the pendency of the Appeal, under Section 12(3) of the said Act, the Court had power to extend the time to deposit the interest and costs amount. He submitted that even assuming that the amount of costs of the suit was paid during the pendency of the Appeal, under Section 12(3) of the said Act, the Court had power to extend the time to deposit the interest and costs amount. He submitted that the Appeal being a continuation of the suit, the deposit of the costs amount during the pendency of the Appeal will have to be treated as substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 12(3) of the said Act. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Tarabai Shivlal Pardeshi, since deceased by heirs and Others v. Murlidhar Paraji Devde 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 858 ) and submitted that the Applicants cannot be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent. He invited the attention of the Court to the text of the proposed amendment of the Written Statement annexed to the Civil Application No.466 of 2011. He pointed out that a notice was issued under Section 90(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 calling upon the Applicants to vacate the suit premises for the purposes of repairs and a transit accommodation was offered to them. He pointed out that accordingly the Applicants and their family members shifted to transit accommodation and have paid rent in respect of the transit accommodation. He stated that the Applicants shifted to the transit accommodation on 27th August, 2001 and even amount of Rs.10,000/-was paid by way of deposit by the Applicants to the Repairs Board. He, therefore, submitted that considering the said payments, the Applicants cannot be held to be the defaulters. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned Judgments and decrees. He did not dispute the fact that the Applicants temporarily shifted to the transit accommodation for facilitating the Repairs Board to repair the building in which the suit premises is situated. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. As the present suit was filed after 1st October, 1987, but before coming into force of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the same will be admittedly governed by the amended Section 12(3) of the said Act of 1947. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. As the present suit was filed after 1st October, 1987, but before coming into force of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the same will be admittedly governed by the amended Section 12(3) of the said Act of 1947. Sub-sections (3) and (4) and the Explanations I and II to Section 12 of the said Act read thus:- "(3) 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 increases 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. (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. Explanation I : 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 subsection (3) of Section 11 and thereafter, pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by the Court. Explanation -II : For the purpose of sub-section (2), reference to "standard rent" and "permitted increase" shall include reference to "interim standard rent" and "interim permitted increase" specified under sub-section (3) or (4) of Section 11." 7. Explanation -II : For the purpose of sub-section (2), reference to "standard rent" and "permitted increase" shall include reference to "interim standard rent" and "interim permitted increase" specified under sub-section (3) or (4) of Section 11." 7. In view of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the said Act, a tenant is entitled the relief against forfeiture provided he satisfies the following conditions: (i) He pays or tenders in Court standard rent and permitted increases due and payable with simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix; (ii) the tenant pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court; and (iii) the tenant continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the disposal of the suit. 8. The first date of hearing of the suit was 15th November, 2003 i.e. the date on which issues were framed. It must be noted here that the settled law is that the first date of hearing shall be the date when the issues are settled. In the facts of the case, the order dated 27th January, 2004 was passed by the Trial Court which permitted the Applicants to deposit arrears of rent payable upto 31st January, 2004 with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. The Trial Court granted time till 9th February, 2004 to deposit the amount. The Trial Court directed the Applicants to deposit costs of the suit on or before 9th February, 2004. The Applicants were also directed to deposit standard rent and permitted increases from 1st February, 2004 till the date of decision in the suit on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month. The record shows that in compliance with the said order, the arrears from 1st January, 2002 to 31st January, 2004 were deposited on 6th April, 2004. A sum of Rs.10,000/-was deposited on that day. The rent from January, 2005 to December, 2005 was deposited on 1st November, 2004. 9. The aforesaid order was passed by the Trial Court after settlement of issues and thus, the Trial Court extended the time to deposit the amount beyond the date of hearing. The suit was decided on 6th October, 2005. The rent from January, 2005 to December, 2005 was deposited on 1st November, 2004. 9. The aforesaid order was passed by the Trial Court after settlement of issues and thus, the Trial Court extended the time to deposit the amount beyond the date of hearing. The suit was decided on 6th October, 2005. The finding of fact of the Courts below and in particular the Appellate Court is that the interest at the rate of 9% per annum was not deposited and even the costs of the suit was not deposited till the disposal of the suit. The record shows that though the Appeal against the decree of the Trial Court was filed in the year 2006, for the first time, on 4th November, 2008, the Applicants deposited rent upto 3rd December, 2008 and the costs of the suit was deposited on 4th November, 2008. Perusal of the record shows that the interim rent fixed in the standard rent application was deposited only upto December, 2001 and the rent for the period from 1st January, 2002 was deposited in the suit. It is pertinent to note that the Application for fixation of standard rent was dismissed in default. There is nothing on record to show that the same was restored. 10. Thus, the Applicants did not comply with the order dated 27th January, 2004 and consequently failed to comply with Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the said Act. A submission was made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants that the Court had power to extend the time to deposit costs of the suit even during the pendency and disposal of the Appeal against the decree of the Trial Court. However, the law on this aspect is very clear which is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vasant Ganesh Damle v. Shrikant Trimbak Datar & Another, AIR 2002 SC 1237 ). The Apex Court held that the tenant is not entitled to take advantage of the beneficial provision of Section 12(3) of the said Act at the Appellate stage which he had failed to avail before the Trial Court. It was held that power to extend the time to deposit the arrears with interest at the rate of 9% per annum together with costs of the suit can be exercised only till disposal of the suit. It was held that power to extend the time to deposit the arrears with interest at the rate of 9% per annum together with costs of the suit can be exercised only till disposal of the suit. Thus, the Courts below and in particular the Appellate Court has rightly held that the Applicants did not comply with the requirements of Section 12(3) of the said Act as amended by Maharashtra Act No.18 of 1987. Therefore, the decree for eviction must follow as the Applicants will not be entitled to the relief against forfeiture provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the said Act. 11. Another argument was made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants on the basis of the deposits made in the application for fixation of standard rent. In the case of Tarabai Shivlal Pardeshi (supra), the tenant had deposited the entire arrears of rent in the application for standard rent which was filed within one month from the date of service of notice of demand and before the date of filing of the suit, the entire amount of arrears of rent was deposited. Paragraph 8 of the Judgment records that after depositing the arrears, the tenant continued to deposit the rent regularly. Moreover, it was a case where the suit was filed prior to 1st October, 1987 and therefore, it was governed by unamended Section 12(3). Now, after the amendment, the mandatory requirement of depositing the arrears together with 9% interest thereon with costs of the suit has been incorporated in the amended Section 12(3) as a condition for grant of protection against a decree for eviction. Moreover, the standard rent application was dismissed for non-prosecution and hence, it cannot be said that there was any dispute regarding the standard rent. Hence, in view of the applicability of amended Section 12 (3), the said decision will not help the Applicants. Moreover, the standard rent application was dismissed for non-prosecution and hence, it cannot be said that there was any dispute regarding the standard rent. Hence, in view of the applicability of amended Section 12 (3), the said decision will not help the Applicants. As far as the ground made out in the Civil Application regarding payments made to the Repairs Board as regards the transit accommodation is concerned, the amounts paid cannot be said to be rent in respect of the suit premises paid to the Respondents as the statutory body has recovered the amount from the Applicants by way of compensation payable in respect of temporary accommodation given to the Applicants to enable the Repairs Board to carry out repairs to the building in which the suit premises is situated. Therefore, the said payment will not affect the merits of the decree for possession. As regards details of the deposit of the rent in Trial Court sought to be incorporated in the Written Statement, the Appellate Court and this Court has already considered the said payments. 12. No case for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The Revision Application is rejected. No order as to costs. 13. Civil Application Nos.142 of 2010 and 466 of 2011 stand disposed of. 14. It is directed that the ad-interim relief granted earlier will continue to operate for a period of three months from today.