F MSUBBAYYA Vs. VENKATARAMANA SUBRAO BARKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, who is the landlord, sued the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) for recovery of possession of the house leased to the petitioner with arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sirsi and was numbered as Small Cause Suit No. 119/1957. The court granted decree tor possession to be delivered to the respondent within one month of the decree and also directed payment of rents and mesne profits with liberty to the respondent io take out the amounts deposited in Court by the petitioner in satisfaction of the decree,

(2.) Against the said decree or order the petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887. One of the principal points argued before me is whether this revision petition is maintainable or competent, the respondent's learned Counsel contending that the order complained of be-ing one made under Section 28 of the Act the petitioner should have appealed to the District Court under Section 29, and the petitioner's learned Counsel contending that the matter is not covered by Section 29 of the Act and that the suit having been tried as a Small Cause suit, the petitioner was entitled to come to this Court invoicing its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(3.) The Bombay Act was enacted with a view to amend and consolidate the law relating to control of rents and repairs of certain premises, of rates of hotels and lodging houses and of evictions. It makes special provision regarding these subjects and to a considerable extent takes away or restricts or modifies the contractual rights of parties and confers and imposes on them certain special rights and obligations. In other words, it is a special Act dealing with this special subject.