JUDGMENT : 1. The applicants herein are the original defendants of H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 disposed of by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 and the original appellant of the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2022 disposed of by the learned Appellate Bench No.2 of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad by judgment and decree dated 30.9.2023. 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned concurrent findings arrived by the competent Court the applicants herein have approached this Court challenging the said judgment and decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 3. The present civil revision application is instituted by the applicants herein challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.57 of 2022 confirming the judgment and decree passed in the H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 dated 29.11.2022. The H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 was preferred by the opponent – original plaintiff for the following reliefs :- H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 “(a) Premises situated on the road in the property known as Lala Maharaj Nu Dahelu lying outside Prem Darwaja in Ahmedabad City, premises bearing Municipal Census No.1729/1, having Muni. Tenement No.0137-27-0006-0019-M and Muni. Tenement No.0137-27-0006-0001-I. Kindly pass the permanent injunction order against the defendant herein and in favour of the plaintiff herein that the defendants herein are restrained from transferring the said premises including both tenement numbers to third party or organization or firm by way of rent, sub-rent or deed of goodwill or deed of agency or deed of partnership and restrained from assigning the possession of the premises to the third party and restrained from modifying, repairing or altering the suit property. (b) Kindly grant any other and further relief (s) as may deem fit to the Ld. Court. (b) Kindly grant any other and further relief (s) as may deem fit to the Ld. Court. (c) Kindly grant the entire cost of the suit from the defendant.” For adjudication of the present dispute whereby the challenge is with respect to the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court in the H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017, it is also relevant to refer to the prayers as prayed for in the H. R.P. Suit No.36 of 2018 which read thus :- H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 “(A) Be pleased to provide from the defendants vacant and actual possession of the room premises with Municipal Tenement No.0137-27-0006-0019-M and Municipal Tenement No.0137- 27-0006-0001-I in the Sessions No.1729/1 located in the property called Lala Maharaj Nu Dehlu, out side the Prem Darwaja in Ahmedabad city, whose boundary details are as below: East : Sariyam Road (From North to South) West : Property of the Plaintiff. North : Property of the Plaintiff. South : Property of the Plaintiff. (B) Details Rs. /- Rent from 01/03/2006 to 30/11/2017. 2,538/- Profit from 01/12/2017 to 31/01/2018. 36/- Cost for Notice. 5,000/- Total (Rs. Seven Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four only) 7,574/- (C) The Amount of Municipal Tax bill pending up to 2017/18. Rs.77,011/- (Rs. Seventy Seven Thousand and Eleven only) Be pleased to pass an order against the defendants to allow us to recover the aforementioned due amounts from the defendants or from any type of their property. (D) Be pleased to provide Profit at Rs.18/- (Rs. Eighteen only) per month till the possession of the property in suit is received. (E) Be pleased to provide any other relief(s) as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 4. Both the suits having been consolidated by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, the suits being H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 and H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 came to be decided by common judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 and passed the following order :- “ -: ORDER :- 1. The HRP Suit No.549 of 2017 is hereby allowed. 2. The defendants of HRP Suit No.549 of 2017, their men, agents, servants etc. are hereby, by granting permanent injunction, restrained from transferring, assigning or subletting the suit premises to any third party either by partnership, goodwill or by any Agreement to the third party. 3. The HRP Suit No.549 of 2017 is hereby allowed. 2. The defendants of HRP Suit No.549 of 2017, their men, agents, servants etc. are hereby, by granting permanent injunction, restrained from transferring, assigning or subletting the suit premises to any third party either by partnership, goodwill or by any Agreement to the third party. 3. The defendants of HRP Suit No.549 of 2017 shall bear the costs of the HRP Suit No.549 of 2017 as well their own. 4. The suit HRP Suit No.36 of 2018 is hereby partly allowed. 5. The defendants of the HRP Suit No.36 of 2018 are hereby directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within two months from this order. 6. The defendants of HRP Suit No.36 of 2018 are hereby directed to pay arrears of rent for three years preceding to the filing of the suit at the rate of Rs.18/-per month to the plaintiff till handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. 7. The plaintiff is hereby permitted to withdraw the amount which is deposited by the defendants as rent and the plaintiff is directed to issue rent receipts in respect of the withdrawal of the amount and to give set off the said amount towards rent. 8. The defendants of HRP Suit No.36 of 2018 shall bear the cost of the HRP Suit No.36 of 2018 as well as their own costs. 9. Decree to be drawn accordingly.” 5. Brief facts leading to the present civil revision application read thus :- 5.1 The opponent – original plaintiff in his capacity as owner of the premises situated in City Ahmedabad, Lal-Darwaja, Outside Prem Darwaja having its Municipal Census No.1729/1 Paiki one room bearing Municipal Tenement No.0137-27-0006- 0019-M which is inside the premises let out for residence and the room situated outside bearing Municipal Tenement No.0137-27-0006-0001-I is let out to do goldsmith work to the applicants – original defendants at monthly rent of Rs.18/- for which rent note came to be executed on 18.10.1970. The applicants herein has also to pay municipal tax, electric burning and education cess, but the applicants herein having not paid the rent from 1.7.1995 to 31.1.2006 the opponent – original plaintiff issued notice to the applicants herein – original defendants. The applicants herein has also to pay municipal tax, electric burning and education cess, but the applicants herein having not paid the rent from 1.7.1995 to 31.1.2006 the opponent – original plaintiff issued notice to the applicants herein – original defendants. 5.2 The said notice having been served, the applicants herein paid the rent of total 128 months on 1.3.2006. 5.3 Thereafter the rent is due from dated 1.3.2006 to 30.11.2017 for the period of 141 months which is not paid by the original defendants – applicants herein. Thus the applicants herein is tenant in arrears of rent for more than six months. The suit premises was let for the purpose of Goldsmith business to the applicant herein - defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 increased the height of the inside room and made one another room over it without any permission from the opponent herein – original plaintiff. The applicant No.1 also removed stones of the flooring and made alterations of the permanent structure. In view of above, the defendants therefore committed breach of the provisions of the Rent Act. 5.4 In view of the aforesaid opponent herein – original plaintiff issued notice on 26.12.2017 to the applicants herein - original defendants through Registered Post A. D. and terminated their tenancy. The applicants – original defendants did not reply to the said notice, nor complied, hence the same resulted in filing of suit for vacating and peaceful possession of the suit premises. 6. The common judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed in the aforesaid suits being H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 and H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 came to be decided by by the learned Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2023 passed in the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2022. The prayers made in the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2022, paragraph-7 read thus :- “(a) Be pleased to pass order allowing the present appeal of the Appellants and set side and reverse the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Judge Mr. B. C. Bhaliya of Small Cause Court No. 2 in H.R.P Civil Suit No. 36/2018 allowing the Suit preferred by the Respondent/ House Owner, holding adverse possession against the Appellant Tenant and to recover rent and also be pleased to allow the Suit being H.R.P. Civil Suit No. 36/2018. Judge Mr. B. C. Bhaliya of Small Cause Court No. 2 in H.R.P Civil Suit No. 36/2018 allowing the Suit preferred by the Respondent/ House Owner, holding adverse possession against the Appellant Tenant and to recover rent and also be pleased to allow the Suit being H.R.P. Civil Suit No. 36/2018. (b) Be pleased to grant any other relief that may deem fit and necessary to Ld. Appellant Bench. (c) Grant the cost of this Appeal from the Respondent.” 7. The judgment and decree dated 30.9.2023 passed in the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2022, paragraphs 38 to 40 and 45 to 57 read thus :- “38. Advocate of the appellant argued that, on the business of the Goldsmith it is required to remove the stone and required to add new stone, on that circumstances it is mandatory provision under Section-23(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the notice is required to be served. In relation to that if notice is given to the plaintiff and he failed to repair the suit premises then the defendant will carry out such construction, but in the present suit the defendant has not produced any evidence to show that, before making the said construction or repairing he has given any notice for repairing, or replacing the stone and fixing tiles on three sides wall and hence without written consent of the plaintiff, the defendant has removed the desi stone and affixed the Marble stone and flooring , and in side the wall and affixed the tiles upto 5.1 and ½ ft. in north, south and west walls in the suit premises, and hence plaintiff’s suit falls under the provision of Section-13(1)(b) of the Rent Act. 39. As per the deposition of the defendant vide Exh.58 he has stated that, he has not made any alteration in the suit premises. In cross examination the defendant no.3 has stated that, it is true that in ground floor we have changed the stone and also constructed RCC concrete work. It is not true that, we have affixed five feet tiles in a shop. It is true that, on changing the stone we have used sand, cement and iron steel. It is not true that, we have constructed bathroom. It is not true that, we have removed the window which was situated in southern side room. It is not true that, we have affixed five feet tiles in a shop. It is true that, on changing the stone we have used sand, cement and iron steel. It is not true that, we have constructed bathroom. It is not true that, we have removed the window which was situated in southern side room. As per the said contention the defendant has admitted that he has removed the flooring of the ground floor and changed the stone and also constructed RCC concrete work and the defendant has admitted that to change the stone and affixing marble they have used sand, cement and iron. As per the cross examination defendant has denied that, he has affixed tiles and as per the court commission report it is found that tiles affixed upto 5 and half ft,in the north, south and western side wall and hence as per the whole reading of the evidence of both the sides, it is found that, the defendant has removed the desi stone which had been affixed on the time of let out the suit premises and replaced the stone i.e marble. 40. Here it is also required to be noted that, as per the cross- examination defendant has denied that affixing of tiles upto 5 1/2 ft on wall but as per the panchnama it is found that, the tiles affixed upto 5 1/2 ft in three walls, it means the defendant has removed all the desi tiles which had been affixed in flooring side. It is also required to be note that, as per the deposition of the plaintiff, it is found that, the no tiles affixed on the wall on the time of let out the suit premises, but as per the panchnama it is found that on the day of commission, the tiles found upto five and half ft., it means the defendant had affixed the said tiles on the wall. No doubt the defendant has denied the said contention that and stated that in general any person remove or replace the flooring tiles on the same time to change the tiles by affixing in a wall or scuttling, and when the defendant has admitted that, he has removed flooring tiles and carried out the construction of RCC of a ground level i.e. flooring and affixed Marble(aaras) stone, and as per the panchnama vide Exh.52 tiles found on the north, south and west wall.” “45. As per the Exh.46 which is rent note, there was no dispute relating the said rent note. As per the said rent note it is clearly mentioned in page no.2 that monthly rent fixed Rs.18/-p.m. and Himmatlal Khemraj Soni who has read the said document and accepted the liability for the payment of business tax, municipal tax, education cess, electricity burning charges and other taxes. As per the said document there is no dispute relating the standard rent but on plain reading of Exh.46 it is found that, there is no dispute relating the monthly rent and responsibility of municipal tax or other tax, there is no dispute relating the standard rent also. 46. As per the Exh.48 it is found that the defendant has paid the rent for the period of 01/07/1995 to 28/02/2006 on dtd.01/03/2006 and it is found that the defendant was irregular for the payment of rent even defendant waited for the notice and after receiving the notice defendant had paid the rent on dtd.01/03/2006. 47. As per the Exh.50 it is found that after 01/03/2006 defendant again not paid the rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff and hence the rent for the period of 01/03/2006 to 30/11/2017 for the period of 11 years outstanding, it means the defendant is neglected for the payment of rent. 48. Learned Advocate of the appellant has argued that he has deposited rent in the Court before framing the issue on dtd.19/4/2018 and hence he is entitled for the protection under Section-12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. On the same time learned advocate of the appellant (partyin-person) argued that, this case filed under the provision of Section-12(3)(a) of the Rent Act and for the protection under Section- 12(3)(b) not touch in this suit. 49. Learned Advocate of the appellant relied upon the judgment of Rasiklal J. Shukla through his legal heirs Vs. On the same time learned advocate of the appellant (partyin-person) argued that, this case filed under the provision of Section-12(3)(a) of the Rent Act and for the protection under Section- 12(3)(b) not touch in this suit. 49. Learned Advocate of the appellant relied upon the judgment of Rasiklal J. Shukla through his legal heirs Vs. Bharat V. Dave minor through ( Natural Gardian) V. M. Dave and argued that, “if the case is not covered by Section-12(3)(a) to file under section12(3)(b) the Court established a duty to grant time to the tenant to pay arrears, if on contention regarding standard rent it raised not necessarily by separate application for fixing of the standard rent but in the written statement.” On plain reading of the said judgment , it is the duty of the appellant to show that he had raised the contention of the standard rent either filled seprate application or in written statement or reply of notice. 50. In the present case defendant has not given reply of notice, even in written statement the defendant has not raised contention of the standard rent before the Small Cause Court even before the Bench, appellant is not raised any dispute relating the standard rent. 51. Learned Advocate of the appellant also relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of R.M. Suthar Vs. C. D. Patel in Civil Revision Application No.467 of 1987 decided on 08/12/2000 where the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that, “Appellate Court found that the judgment was pronounced as Trial Court, tenant had paid all arrears of rent as ordered by the Court, if there was some delay in depositing the rent before the decree was passed on account of uncertainty in the mind of the tenant about the actual rate of standard rent at which he was required to deposit the same, it would not be indicate that he was not ready and willing to pay the rent” and hence Learned Advocate of the appellant has argued that, in the present suit he has made some delay but deposited the rent but before framing the issue he has deposited entire amount of rent even deposited rent till 31/01/2024 and hence he is entitled for the protection under Section-12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. 52. 52. As per the notice vide Exh.50 it is found that the original landlord has claimed the outstanding rent, no doubt in the said notice in another portion also stated that the corporation tax was outstanding amount Rs.77,011/- but it is required to be clarified that in notice, the plaintiff has mentioned the amount of rent and municipal tax separately and as per the notice it is clearly found that total outstanding rent was Rs.2538/- and hence the defendant is liable to deposit the said amount from the period of 30 days from the receiving of the notice. 53. Advocate of the appellant rely the judgment of Gaznafarali Fatehali Hakim Vs. Ratilal Maganlal Panchal reported in 1998 (2) page-1110 on the said judgment, “it is not in dispute that the defendant was not replied to the notice dtd.6/4/1977, he neither raised any dispute with respect to the standard rent nor deposited the arrears of rent within the period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice dtd.06/04/1977. The requirement of 12(3)(a) of the Act is: (i) that the rent is payable by month, (ii) the amount of standard rent and permitted increase is not disputed, (iii) standard rent and permitted increase are unpaid for six months or more, (iv) the tenant has received notice u/s 12(2) (v) the tenant has neglected to pay standard rent and permitted increase for such period within a month after receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act. In the present case the tenant has neglected to pay standard rent and permitted increase for such period within a month after receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act So far as the requirements (i) to (iv) are concerned, there is no dispute that they are fulfilled in the present case. On the requirement No. (v) the contention of the respondent-tenant is that the first notice received on 13-10- 1975 which was replied vide letter dated 1-11-1975 and therefore, there was no necessity of giving reply to notice dated 6-4-1977. In my view this contention is not sustainable. Section 12(2) refers to the last notice before filing of the suit. On the requirement No. (v) the contention of the respondent-tenant is that the first notice received on 13-10- 1975 which was replied vide letter dated 1-11-1975 and therefore, there was no necessity of giving reply to notice dated 6-4-1977. In my view this contention is not sustainable. Section 12(2) refers to the last notice before filing of the suit. If the landlord-plaintiff has given more than one notice and if the tenant wants protection under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act to show his readiness and willingness to pay arrears of rent, he must remain alert and continue to reply to the notice given by plaintiff-landlord. Another contention is that the rent for the period 1-7-1975 to 30- 11-1975 were sent by money orders Exh. 23, 24 and 25. The said money orders were refused and, therefore, it was not obligatory for the tenant to continue to send rent by money order. Ms. Roopal Patel has relied on the decision of This Court in Lilavanti Dhirajlal Boradiya Vs. Soni Harjivan Devjibhai, It is held in that case that if the landlord refuses to accept the amount tendered by money order the tenant is not bound to repeat the remittance of the said amount again. This case is of no assistance to the petitioner. In the present case, so far as money order Exh. 23 is concerned, the case of plaintiff is that it was refused for the reasons that it did not include electricity charges. The first appellate Court found that inadvertently instead of electricity charges it was mentioned water charges. It was an inadvertent mistake and there was no justified ground for the plaintiff to refuse the money order.In my opinion the view of the learned Judge of the appellate Court is not correct. How the water charges could be understood as electric charges by the landlord? Similarly, the money order at Exh. 24 was also not of the full rent plus electricity charges. In any case, if money orders were not accepted for any reason, tenant had an opportunity to deposit the same or to pay the same when he received the notice dated 6-4-1977. In any case, this will not obviate the tenant from his obligation to give a reply to the notice u/s 12(2) if he wants protection u/s 12(1). In any case, if money orders were not accepted for any reason, tenant had an opportunity to deposit the same or to pay the same when he received the notice dated 6-4-1977. In any case, this will not obviate the tenant from his obligation to give a reply to the notice u/s 12(2) if he wants protection u/s 12(1). The learned Counsel has also relied on the decision of This Court in the case of Bhalchandra N. Vakil v. Chandukil Mohanlal Darji 1983 G.L.H.8. The said case also pertains to refusal of money order by the landlord. I have already dealt with this aspect. Thus, in the present case, the fifth requirement under 12(3)(a) that the tenant has neglected to pay the standard rent and permitted increase within a period of one month after receipt of the notice u/s 12(2) of the Act is also fulfilled. As all the requirement of 12(3)(a) of the Act is fulfilled the plaintiff is entitled to decree for eviction and the tenant-respondent is liable to be evicted. Both the Courts below have committed manifest error in not granting decree for eviction, in disregard to mandate of 12(3)(a) of the Act. In Ambalal''s case (supra) This Court has said that the word "may" used in Sub-Section 3(a) of Section 12 in its context should be read as "shall". As the instant case falls within the four corners of 12(3)(a) and not Section 12(1) there is no alternative but to pass decree for eviction of suit premises.” 54. In the present Suit following is required to be noted : (i) that the rent is payable by month, In the present case rent fixed for month (ii) the amount of standard rent and permitted increase is not disputed, In the present case No dispute for standard rent (iii) standard rent and permitted increase are unpaid for six months or more, In the present case rent were unpaid more than six month (iv) the tenant has received notice u/s 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act In the present case tenant had received notice (v) the tenant has neglected to pay standard rent and permitted increase for such period within a month after receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act. In the present case the tenant has neglected to pay standard rent and permitted increase for such period within a month after receipt of notice u/s 12(2) of the Act. 55. As per the settled principal laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is found that the said notice vide Exh.50 had been served to the defendant and even before filing of the suit within the period of 30 days the defendant has not paid the amount of rent which was outstanding. 56. As per the evidence of the plaintiff as well as defendant it is found that (1) rent is payable by month amount Rs.18/- (2) As per the Exh.46 no dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increase (3) monthly rent Rs.18/- is the standard rent which is not paid for more than six months for the defendant has received notice under Section-12(2) vide Exh.50 (4) tenant has neglected to pay the monthly rent of Rs.18/- for the period of 01/03/2006 to 30/01/2017 after receipt of the notice under Section-12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, even defendant has not replied the said notice vide Exh.50 and Section-12(2) referred to the last notice before filing of the suit. 57. If landlord/plaintiff has given notice and the defendant show his readiness and willingness to pay arrears of rent he must remain alert and continue to reply to the notice given by plaintiff-landlord, through money order or any other means and if tenant will fulfill for depositing the amount of outstanding rent during the period of 30 days of receiving the notice will get the protection under Section-12(3)(b) but in the instant case, the tenant has neglected to pay the monthly rent Rs.18/- which was standard rent, of one month after receipt of the notice under Section-12(2) of the Act and hence all the requirement of Section-12(3)(a) of the Act is fulfilled by the plaintiff and hence original plaintiff is entitled to get decree of the eviction and the tenant-the present defendants are liable to be evicted and hence the Trial Court has rightly concluded issue no.1 but it is found that the original defendants are not ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent under Section- 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act and hence we conclude Issue/Point no.2 as affirmative.” The operative order of the Civil Revision Appeal No.57 of 2022 read thus :- “ORDER 1. The present appeal is hereby Dismissed. 2. The judgment and decree passed by Learned Small Cause Court No.2 in HRP Suit No.36 of 2018 on dtd.29/11/2022 is hereby confirmed and upheld. 3. Appellants shall bear their own costs as well as cost of the respondents. 4. Record and proceedings of the HRP Suit No.36 of 2018 shall be returned to the Learned Small Cause Court No.2 with copy of this Judgment. 5. Any interim order relating of stay passed during pendency of appeal, is hereby vacat from today. 6. Decree to be drawn accordingly.” In light of the aforesaid, it emerges that the applicants herein preferred Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in the H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 allowing the suit preferred by the original plaintiff, adverse possession against the applicants herein and to recover the rent. The Appellate Court by the aforesaid order dismissed the Appeal filed by the applicants herein under Sections 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act. 8. The present civil revision application is instituted by the applicants herein challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in the H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 and the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2022 in which subject matter of challenge was judgment and decree passed in H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018. The H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 was never challenged by the applicants herein before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. 9. In the aforesaid set of facts, the said order passed in H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 having not challenged, the findings arrived in the suit suit can be said to have attained finality. 10. The Appellate Bench has confirmed the judgment and decree passed in the H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 on 29.11.2022. 11. The following issues came to be framed by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in the H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 below Ex.49 which read thus :- “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have carried out unlawful permanent construction in the suit premises without the consent of the plaintiff which cannot be removed without causing serious damage to the suit premises ? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have carried out unlawful permanent construction in the suit premises without the consent of the plaintiff which cannot be removed without causing serious damage to the suit premises ? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are not using the suit premises without any reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit ? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the conduct of the defendants amounts to nuisance and annoyance as alleged ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ? 5. What order and decree ?” The said issues were dealt with and answered by the competent Court as under :- (1) In the struck off. (2) In the struck off. (3) In the struck off. (4) In the affirmative. (5) As per the final order. 12. The applicants herein have chosen not to challenge the judgment and decree in H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018. In view thereof, the said decree having confirmed by the Appellate Court can be said to have attained finality whereby, by allowing the said suit the applicants herein were directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises within a period of two months from the date of the said order as provided under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The applicants herein were directed to pay arrears of rent for three years preceding the filing of the suit at the rate of Rs.18/- per month to the original plaintiff – opponent herein till handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and the original plaintiff – opponent herein was permitted to withdraw the amount which was deposited by the original defendants as rent and the original plaintiff – opponent herein was directed to issue rent receipt in respect of withdrawal of the amount and to give set off for the amount towards the rent. 13. 13. In light of the aforesaid undisputed fact, the H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 which was filed for granting permanent injunction restraining the applicants herein from transferring, assigning and subletting the suit premises to third party either by partnership or goodwill or any agreement to third party would be governed by the judgment and decree passed in the H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 wherein both the Courts have concurrently held that, the applicants herein were in arrears of rent and case of the original plaintiff – opponent herein was accepted under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. Position of law 14(A) It is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down in the case of Ratilal Balabhai Nazar vs. Ranchhodbhai Shankerbhai Patel, reported in 1968 (9) 48, paragraphs 3 and 6 read thus:- “3. That takes us to the merits of the petition. So far as merits are concerned there is little doubt that the judgment of the learned Principal Judge suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record The learned Principal Judge took the view that the applicability of sec. 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) was confined to cases in which there was no dispute as to the standard rent and where there was such dispute the case fell to be governed exclusively by sec. 12(1) and the Explanation. This view was patently erroneous as it in now well-settled by several decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court that the various Subsections of sec. 12 confer protection on a tenant at different stages. Sec. 12(1) enacts a rule of decision that if at the date of the institution of the suit the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases he shall be protected from eviction subject to the provisions of sec. 12(3)(a). Sec. 12(2) gives an opportunity to the defaulting tenant to pay up the arrears and save himself from being evicted :-if the tenant pays up the arrears within one month of the service of the notice under sec. 12(2) he gets the protection of sec 12(1). If the tenant disputes the amount of standard rent and permitted increases he can avail himself of the Explanation and show his readiness and willingness to pay the standard rent and permitted increases by complying with the conditions laid down in the Explanation. 12(2) he gets the protection of sec 12(1). If the tenant disputes the amount of standard rent and permitted increases he can avail himself of the Explanation and show his readiness and willingness to pay the standard rent and permitted increases by complying with the conditions laid down in the Explanation. Sec. 12(3)(a) specifies the circumstances in which the tenant forfeits the protection under the Rent Act. There are four conditions which have to be satisfied in order to attract the applicability of sec. 12(3)(a) and they are:- (1) the rent must be payable by the month; (2) there must be no dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases right upto the expiration of a period of one month from the date of the notice under sec. 12(2) (3) the rent must be in arrears for a period of six months or more at the date of such notice; and (4) the tenant must neglect to make payment of such arrears until the expiration of a period of one month after the date of such notice. If in any case these four conditions are satisfied the landlord is entitled to obtain a decree for eviction against the tenant. Sec. 12(3)(b) opens with the words in any other case and obviously refers to cases other than those covered by sec. 12(3)(a). If the case does not fall within sec. 12(3)(a) it would have to be decided by reference to sec. 12(3)(b) Whether the rent is not payable by the month or there is a dispute as to the standard rent or permitted increases at the date of the notice under sec. 12(2) or at any rate before the expiration of a period of one month from such notice or the rent in arrears at the date of such notice is rot for a period of six months or more the case would all within sec. 12(3)(b) and if the conditions of sec 12(3) are complied with the tenant would be entitled to protection not with standing that he was not ready and willing or deemed to be ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases within the meaning of sec 12(1). This being the undoubted position in law it was not seriously disputed by Mr. This being the undoubted position in law it was not seriously disputed by Mr. S.B. Vakil on behalf of the respondents that the judgment of the learned Principal Judge was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. But he contended that even so the decree for eviction passed by the learned Principal Judge should not be set aside since the petitioner was admittedly in arrears of rent at the date of the institution of the suit and was consequently not entitled to the protection of sec. 12(1) and his case was governed by sec. 12(3)(a) and in any event even if sec. 12(3)(a) did not apply sec. 12(3)(b) did not afford any protection to the petitioner since the conditions of that section were not satisfied. Miss Daboo ready conceded that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of sec. 1(1) as he was admittedly in arrears of rent at the date of the institution of the suit but her contention was that sec 12(3)(a) did not apply and the case was therefore governed by sec. 12(3)(b) and the conditions of sec. 12 being satisfied no decree for eviction was liable to be passed against the petitioner. These rival contentions raised the question as to whether the case was governed by sec 12(3)(a) or sec 12(3)(b). We have already set out the four conditions which are necessary to be satisfied in order to attract the applicability of sec 12(3)(a) and the dispute between the parties centered round the fulfillment of the first condition denoted by the words where the rent is payable by the month. The argument of the petitioner was that the rent in the present case was Rs. 50.00 per month plus municipal taxes plus Rs. 5.00 per month in respect of electricity charges and since the municipal taxes were payable by the year the rent could not be said to be payable the month with in the meaning of sec. 12(3)(a). The respondents on the other hand urged that the word rent was used in sec. 12(3)(a) not in its legal technical sense but in its popular sense and according to the popular sense it did not include municipal taxes and that in any event if it included municipal taxes there was sufficient compliance by the month. 12(3)(a). The respondents on the other hand urged that the word rent was used in sec. 12(3)(a) not in its legal technical sense but in its popular sense and according to the popular sense it did not include municipal taxes and that in any event if it included municipal taxes there was sufficient compliance by the month. The argument of the petitioner was supported by a decision given by me sitting as a single Judge in Mohanlal V/s. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. (1962) III GLR 574 and the correctness of this decision was also therefore questioned on behalf of the respondents. But for the purpose of deciding the present petition it is not necessary to go into the question whether the decision in Mohanlal V/s. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. (supra) is correct for we are of the view that even if the decision is correct and the case does not fall within sec. 12(3)(a) and must therefore be governed by sec. 12(3)(b) the conditions of sec. 12(3)(b) are not satisfied and the petitioner is therefore not entitled to protection under sec. 12(3)(b). Our reasons for saying so are as follows. 6. If therefore in the present case the petitioner had regularly deposited in Court the standard rent according to the rate determined by the trial Court right upto the passing of the decree by the appellate Court the appellate Court would have been bound to fix a date for payment of the arrears of standard rent according to the enhanced rate determined by the appellate Court and if the petitioner paid or tendered the same on or before such date the appellate Court could not have passed a decree for eviction against the petitioner. But we find that the petitioner did not regularly deposit in Court the standard rent at the rate determined by the trial Court. He admittedly made default in payment of the standard rent for the month of December 1961 with the result that on 15th January 1962 when the appellate Court gave its decision enhancing the standard rent the petitioner was in arrears of standard rent even according to the rate determined by the trial Court. He admittedly made default in payment of the standard rent for the month of December 1961 with the result that on 15th January 1962 when the appellate Court gave its decision enhancing the standard rent the petitioner was in arrears of standard rent even according to the rate determined by the trial Court. There was therefore no obligation on the appellate Court to grant time to the petitioner to make payment of the arrears of standard rent according to the enhanced rate and the appellate Court could not be said to be guilty of an error of law in passing a decree for eviction against the petitioner. Realising this difficulty in the way of the petitioner Miss Daboo contended that even if the conditions of sec. 12(3)(b) were not complied with there was yet a discretion in the Court whether or not to pass 8 decree for eviction against the petitioner and she sought to support this contention by reference to B decision of Chagla C.J. in Kalidas Bhavan V/s. Bhagwandas 60 Bom.L.R. 1359. But this decision is no longer good law so far as this Court is concerned since a contrary view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Ambalal V/s. Babaldas (1962) 3 Guj.Law Reporter 625. It is clearly laid down in this decision that where a landlord has determined the tenancy of a tenant otherwise than under clause (g) of sec. 111 of Transfer of Property Act and the tenant is not entitled to claim the protection of any sub-section of sec. 12 of the Rent Act the right of the landlord under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant to recover possession of the premises from the tenant on the termination of the tenancy must prevail and the tenant cannot resist the landlords claim for possession and the Court has no discretion to refuse to grant a decree for possession to the landlord. We are therefore of the view though for different reasons that the decree for eviction passed by the appellate Court was legal and valid.” (B) In the case of Sugarbai M. Siddiq and ors. vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (dead) by Lrs., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 477 , paragraphs 7 and 8 read thus :- “7. We are therefore of the view though for different reasons that the decree for eviction passed by the appellate Court was legal and valid.” (B) In the case of Sugarbai M. Siddiq and ors. vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (dead) by Lrs., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 477 , paragraphs 7 and 8 read thus :- “7. Since the order impugned before the High Court was passed under section 12(3)(a)of the act, it will be apt to quote the relevant provisions of section 12 here : "12(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, insofar 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-sec.(2), the Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession. (b) … … ... 8. … … … The mandate of sub-sec. (2) is that a landlord shall not file a suit for recovery of possession against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of one month of service of notice of demand for the amount due by him in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The directions contained in sub-sections (3) and (4) are addressed to the court. The directions contained in sub-sections (3) and (4) are addressed to the court. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) postulates passing a decree for eviction in a suit for recovery of possession by the court where : (i) the rent payable is month by month; (ii) there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases; (iii) rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more; and (iv) the tenant has neglected to make payment of arrears until the expiration of one month after the service of the notice of demand. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) prohibits the court from passing a decree for eviction of a tenant in such a suit in a case not covered by clause (a) 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 due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the final decision of the suit and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the court. Sub-section (4) is not relevant for the present discussion.” 15. In light of the aforesaid position of law, as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error of law or of jurisdiction that can be said to have been committed by the competent Courts while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. This Court is in agreement with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the competent Courts wherein it is held that, the applicants are held to be in arrears of rent as on 26.12.2017. 16. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down in the case of Major S. S. Khanna vs. Brig F. J. Dillon, reported in AIR 1964 SC 497 , paragraph-33 and 37 read thus:- “33.The power given by S. 115 of the Code is clearly limited to the keeping of the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It does not comprehend the power exercisable under the writ of Prohibition or Mandamus. It is also not a full power of Certiorari inasmuch as it arises only in a case of jurisdiction and not in a case of error. It does not comprehend the power exercisable under the writ of Prohibition or Mandamus. It is also not a full power of Certiorari inasmuch as it arises only in a case of jurisdiction and not in a case of error. It has been ruled by the Judicial Committee and also by this Court that the section is concerned with jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone involving a refusal to exercise jurisdiction where one exists or an assumption of jurisdiction where none exists and lastly acting with illegality or material irregularity. Where there is no question of jurisdiction in this manner the decision cannot be corrected for it has also bee ruled that a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. But once a flaw of jurisdiction is found the High Court need not quash and remit as is the practice in English Law under the writ of Certiorari but pass such order as it thinks fit. 37. In my opinion, the construction generally accepted in the High Courts is more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the section SC506 considered as a whole than the view accepted in the two cited cases. As I pointed out earlier, the section confers a power analogous to the power to issue a writ of Certiorari but only with a view to keeping Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. This power is exercisable in respect of all orders involving jurisdiction in which no appeal lies to the High Court. … ...” 17. The following emerge for the consideration of this Court; (1) The rent note executed by the applicant No.1 herein Ex.46 wherein the suit premises let on rent at the rate of 18/- p.m. plus tax etc., to the applicant No.1. The said rent note is undisputed. (2) The applicants herein chose not to pay rent from 1.7.1995 to 30.1.2006 and, therefore, the opponent herein served notice upon the applicants herein on 15.2.2006 by UPC Ex.47. (3) The applicant No.1 thereafter paid rent of 128 months on 1.3.2006. The rent receipt of the payment by the applicant No.1 upto 28.2.2006 Ex.48. (4) The applicants did not pay the rent and, therefore, written notice was given to the applicant on 28.9.2012 Ex.49. (5) Inspite of the written notice Ex.49 the applicant did not pay the rent. (3) The applicant No.1 thereafter paid rent of 128 months on 1.3.2006. The rent receipt of the payment by the applicant No.1 upto 28.2.2006 Ex.48. (4) The applicants did not pay the rent and, therefore, written notice was given to the applicant on 28.9.2012 Ex.49. (5) Inspite of the written notice Ex.49 the applicant did not pay the rent. (6) The rent is due from dated 1.3.2006 to 30.11.2017 for the period of 141 months (for a period of 11 years and 09 months) which is not paid by the applicant No.1 till the filing of the suit for the rent and possession after giving the applicant No.1 notice by Registered A.D. terminating the tenancy Ex.55 with acknowledgment vide postal slip. (7) In view of the aforesaid, the rent of the suit premises is Rs.18/- p.m. and is monthly payable rent. (8) There is no dispute with regard to the standard rent or permitted increases as well as the applicant – tenant is in arrears for a period of 141 months and the applicant – tenant has neglected to make payment within a month from the service of notice of the arrears of rent. In view thereof, the present case fall within purview of Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. (9) The applicants herein have failed to prove that the applicants have paid the arrears of rent to the landlord within a period of one month from the service of the notice. (10) On perusal of the record that is placed on record by the opponent herein, the applicants have not paid due amount of rent since long time which is undisputed. (11) From the conduct of the applicants it transpire that the applicants herein are irregular in payment of arrears of rent. (12) For the first time the applicants paid arrears of rent in the trial Court from dated 1.3.2006 to 30.11.2017 on 19.4.2018. Thereafter the applicants - tenants did not pay the rent regularly during the pendency of suit and remained in arrears for about three years and lastly paid the arrears of rent on 5.10.2021. In view of the settled legal position, the case of the applicants herein falls within the purview of Section 12(3)((a) of the Rent Act. The decree passed in H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 has attained finality. In view of the settled legal position, the case of the applicants herein falls within the purview of Section 12(3)((a) of the Rent Act. The decree passed in H. R. P. Suit No.36 of 2018 has attained finality. In the cross-examination of the applicants vide Ex.58, the applicants stated that, “we have carried out construction of RCC on ground level replacing the stone”. The aforesaid statement clearly states that the applicants have carried out changes in the suit premises which competent Court has held to be that of permanent nature. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the applicants herein proceeded to change the nature of the suit premises without following mandatory provision of Section 23(2) of the Act wherein notice was required to be issued to the landlord. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the nature of the construction is of permanent nature and not minor changes. The aforesaid is considered in paragraphs-38 to 40 of the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. 18. Consequently the provision of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act comes into force. In light of the aforesaid no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in H. R. P. Suit No.549 of 2017 dated 29.11.2022 and the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2023 passed in the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2022 by the learned Appellate Bench No.2 of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. The present civil revision application stands dismissed accordingly.