Purely procedural orders which do not affect the substantive rights of the parties are not revisable under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---The petitioner-original plaintiff has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Bench of the Court of small Causes at Bombay dated 11th of June, 1981 holding that the revision application under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not maintainable against an order refusing permission to amend the plaint. The present suit was filed by the petitioner-landlord for the eviction of the tenant-respondent. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, amendment of the written statement was permitted on 10th of September, 1975. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application proposing to amend the plaint by adding para 6-A raising the ground that the eviction could also be ordered since the defendant-tenant has denied his title. Since the said amendment application came to be rejected, the plaintiff was debarred from raising this additional ground in the present suit. Against the said order, the plaintiff petitioner filed a revision petition before the Bench of the Court of Small Causes under section 29(3) of the Act which as already observed was also rejected on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable.

2. Initially, the matter was placed before the Single Judge, Masodkar J. The learned Judge held that the question involved in the writ petition is of general importance and there is a need for an authoritative interpretation of the provisions with regard to the remedies of the suitors, and therefore, the matter should be placed before the Division Bench. This is how, the matter is placed before us.

3. Shri Gokhale, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that the Bench of the Court of Small Causes committed an error in holding that the revision petition was not maintainable under section 29(3) of the Act. According to Shri Gokhale, the Rent Act is a complete Code which provides for the rights and the obligation between the parties, that is, landlord and the tenant, as well as the remedies for it enforcement. Section 28 provides for a forum and lays down the scope of the jurisdiction of the courts. Then comes section 29 which provides for the appeals as well as the revisions. According to the learned Counsel if the provisions of section 28 and 29 are read together harmoniously it will have to be held that all orders and/or decrees in which no appeal lies under section 29(1) of the Act are revisable under section 29(3), which will include even the procedural orders passed in the proceedings instituted under the Rent Act. Therefore, the Bench of the Court of Small Causes has committed an error in holding that the revision petition against an order rejecting the amendment application was not maintainable. In this context, Shri Gokhale has placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in A.I.R 1975 Bombay 41, (Habib Ahmed v. Abdul Khadar)1, 1966(68) Bom.L.R, 857, in (Hemchand M Singhania v. Subhkaran Nandlal Baragra)2, and A.I.R. 1959 Mysore 145 (F.M. Subbayya v. Venkataramana)3. Shri Kulkarni the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant supported the contentions raised by Shri Gokhale. Since Shri Kulkarni chose to support the contentions raised by Shri Gokhale, we requested Shri Jahagirdar to help the Court a amicus curiae to which he readily agreed. We are very much thankful to him for the assistance.

4. For properly appreciating that the controversy raised before us, it will be worthwhile if a detailed reference is made to section 29 of the which reads as under :---

"29.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, an appeal shall lie---

(a) in Greater Bombay, from a decree or order made by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, exercising jurisdiction under section 28, to a bench of two Judges of the said Court which shall not include the Judge who made such decree or order; (b) elsewhere, from a decree or order made by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document