It is to be noticed that the rent was in arrears for a period of more than six months. The tenant neglected to make payment of the arrears of rent within one month of the service of the notice by the landlord under sub-s. (2) of s.12. The rent was payable by the month, and there was no dispute regarding the amount of the rent. The case was, therefore, precisely covered by sub-s. (3)(a) of s. 12. Nevertheless, the appellant submitted that as· she was ready and willing to pay the rent before the institution of the suit, she could claim protectio11 under sub-s. (I) of s. 12. She submitted that the decided cases support this contention. In Mohan/a/ v. Maheslnrari Mills Ltd.(1 ), P. 1. Bhagwati, J. held that even in a ease falling under sub-s. (3) (a), a tenant could. by paying or showing his readiness and willing11ess to pay the arrears of rent before the institution of the suit, claim protection from eviction under sub-s. (I). A similar opinion was expressed by a Divisional Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Amba/al v. Rabaldas('). The judgment under appeal dissented from the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court. The Bombay High Court held, and, in our opinion, rightly, that in a case falling under sub-s. (3)(a), the tenant I could not claim protection from eviction by showing his readiness and willingness to pay the rent before the institution of the suit.
