V.B. Raju, J.
1. This is a revision application under the Rent Act. The learned Assistant Judge of Kaira at Nadiad, in appeal, decreed the plaintiff-landlady's suit for possession on the ground of arrears of rent, holding that the requirement of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Rent Act bad not been satisfied. In revision, it is contended that the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Rent Act has not been satisfied. That sub-section reads as follows i
No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against a 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.
2. It is, therefore, contended that no notice was given for the arrears of rent, which were due on the date of the suit. A notice was given on 2-5-1959 to the tenant stating that an amount of Rs. 175/- was due as arrears of rent for seven months. Subsequently, the tenant filed an application for standard rent. The standard rent was fixed. These proceedings went on upto 1960. The suit was filed on 31-1-1961. Before the date of the filing of the suit, the rent which had been claimed in the notice dated 2-5-1959 had been paid, and this is admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint. On the date of the suit, although the amount demanded in the notice was not in arrears, the rent due for some subsequent months was in arrears. The learned appellate Judge took the view that in such circumstances no fresh notice is necessary and that the amount of arrears of rent was not paid as required by Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and therefore a decree for eviction should be passed.
3. Whether a notice dated 2-5-1959 is a sufficient compliance of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Rent Act depends on the wording of that sub-section; which is already quoted above. It refers to suits for recovery of possession on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases. In other words, the notice must contain a demand of the standard rent, non-payment of which is the basis of the suit. In this case, the suit is not for the payment of rent demanded in the notice of 2-5-1959, and therefore, the notice does not satisfy the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Rent Act.
4. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, wrong in decreeing the suit for eviction. The decree is, therefore, set aside. No orders as to costs.