LILA KISHENCHAND JAISINGHANI Vs. ODHAVJI POPATLAL AHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the tenant, a question about the scope and construction of Section 11 and Section 11A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arises. That question, in short is whether an application for fixation of standard rent is barred if an earlier application for similar purpose had been dismissed for default without being decided on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in the suit premises. The premises are a block of five rooms on the first floor of a building known as Sharad Villa, Plot No. 130, Old Khar, Bombay. The premises were let out to the petitioner on May 17, 1953 on a rent of Rs. 150 per month. The petitioner filed an application bearing R.A. No. 113 of 1954 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 11 of the Act for the fixation of standard rent of the premises. After the respondent appeared and filed his reply, the matter was referred to the Commissioner for recording evidence. Evidence was led by the parties before the Commissioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner made his report to the Court. The parties filed their objections to the report. While the matter was pending at that stage in Court, the petitioner and her advocate remained absent, whereas the respondent's advocate remained present. Hence, the application was dismissed for default of appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for the restoration of her application under Section 11 of the Act, but that was also dismissed.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter filed a third application out of which the present petition arises on October 30, 1964 bearing R.A.N. No. 3045/SR of 1964 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for the fixation of standard rent under Section 11 of the Act. In the meantime, s. HA was introduced in the Act by the Maharashtra Act No. XIV of 1963, which Act came into force on March 28, 1963. On the contentions taken by the respondent, a preliminary issue was raised by the Court regarding the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act for the fixation of standard rent. The trial Court held that such an application was maintainable. The respondent went in revision to the Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, comprising two Judges. The learned Additional Chief Judge, who was the senior of the two, held that the petitioner's application was not maintainable. On the other hand, the junior Judge held that the application was maintainable. However, under the Rules of the Court, the order of the Bench was to be in conformity with the view taken by the senior Judge. As the senior Judge had decided that the application was not maintainable, the petitioner's application for fixation of standard rent was dismissed. It is this order that is being challenged in this petition.