LAHERIBAI J TRIVEDI Vs. DHARAMDATTA V TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 28th July, 2009, this Court directed that this petition shall be heard finally at the stage of admission. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard earlier. One of the issues involved in this petition is whether a revision application under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as said Act of 1947) was maintainable.

(2.) The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. The suit was filed in the year 1982 for possession against respondents

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this was a fit case where the order of restoration ought to have been passed by the trial Court. Inviting my attention to the case made out in the application for restoration, he submitted that the revision application filed by the petitioner was maintainable under section 29(3) of the said Act of 1947. He criticized the finding of the Appellate Court that impugned order has been passed under Rule 8 of Order IX of the said Code. He submitted that the order of dismissal of the suit was passed by the trial Court under Rule 3 of Order IX of the Code and, therefore, a remedy for applying for restoration under Rule 9 of Order IX of the said Code was not available to the petitioners. He has relied upon the various decisions of this Court to show that a revision application under section 29(3) of the said act of 1947 was maintainable.