NATIONAL HOTEL Vs. RUKAIYABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application raises a pure question of law as to whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, exercising jurisdiction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short called "the Rent Act") has jurisdiction to entertain an application for review under section 114 read with Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short called "the Code").

(2.) The facts in so far as they are material are these. The respondents are the landlords and the petitioners are the tenants of the hotel premises known as National Hotel at Grant Road. The agreed rent of the premises is Rs. 1,790/- per month. The tenants filed an application in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for fixation of standard rent under section 11 of the Rent Act. By order dated September 22, 1971, the Court of Small Causes fixed standard rent of the premises at Rs. 1,017/- per month. On November 4, 1971, the respondents filed an application for review of the said order. Whereas the original order of the Court of Small Causes was passed on the basis of the estimated cost of construction of the building, the review was sought on the ground that the landlords have discovered further evidence on the basis of which they wanted to prove the standard rent on the actual expenses for construction of the building by producing additional evidence. The review application was rejected by the trial Court on the preliminary ground that it was time barred. Being aggrieved by both the orders, namely, the one whereby the Court of Small Causes had fixed the standard rent and the other whereby the Court of Small Causes rejected the review application, the landlords preferred a revision application before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. In revision, the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, disagreeing with the view taken by the trial Court, held that the application for review was filed within limitation. It was urged on behalf of the tenants that the review application was not maintainable in the absence of any provision of law conferring jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to review an order passed by it under section 11 of the Rent Act. The Appellate Bench, however, rejected this contention of the tenants and held that the review application was competent. In the result, without going into the merits as regards the standard rent, the Appellate Bench allowed the revision application and remanded the matter back to the trial Court to dispose of the review application on merits. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Bench, the tenants have preferred this civil revision.

(3.) Mr. Mirchandani, the learned Counsel appearing for the tenants, did not dispute before me the correctness of the findings of the Appellate Bench on the question of limitation. He, however, submitted that the land lords application for review was not maintainable in law and, therefore, all that the Appellate Bench should have done was to proceed with the hearing of the application on merits as regards the standard rent fixed by the trial Court. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that there is no provision either in the Rent Act or in the Rules framed thereunder giving a right to file an application for review under section 114 read with Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code.