KHANWILKAR A.M., J.: - Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

3. Mr. Walawalkar waives notice for respondent No.1 who is the only contesting respondent for the purpose of present writ petition.

4. As short question is involved, petition is heard finally forthwith by consent.

5. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 2nd November, 2006 in Revision Application No. 228 of 2005. That Revision Application was filed by the respondent No. 1 taking exception to the judgment and Order passed by the trial Court dated 9th September, 2005 in Interim Notice No. 82 of 2005 filed in pending RAE No. 771/1409 of 2004. The said Interim Notice was taken out by the respondent No.1 praying for permission to file written statement beyond permissible period. In other words, the said Application was for condonation of delay in filing written statement and to take ",Titten statement of the respondent No. 1 on record. The trial Court by its well reasoned judgment and Order dated 9th September, 2005 rejected that application. The respondent No. 1 carried the matter in revision under section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The said proceedings were treated as revision by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appellate Bench was pleased to reverse the opinion recorded by the trial Judge and instead allowed Interim Notice filed by respondent No. 1.

6. The principal question raised before this Court is that the Appellate Bcnch of the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Revision Application preferred by the respondent No.1. To consider the correctness of that position, it would be appropriate to advert to section 34 of the Act, which reads thus:

"34. Appeal.-( 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie(a) in Brihan Mumbai, from a decree or order made by the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, exercising jurisdiction under section 33, 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 a Judge of the Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, or by the Court of the Civil Judge deemed to be the Court of Small Causes under Clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 33 or by a Civil Judge exercising such jurisdiction, to the District Court:

Provided that no such appeal shall lie from,(a) a decree or order made in any suit or proceeding in respect of which no appeal lies under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;

(b) a decree or order made in any suit or proceeding (other than a suit or proceeding relating to possession) in which the plaintiff seeks to recover rent in respect of any premises and the amount or value of the subject-matter of which does not exceed(i) where such suit or proceeding is instituted in Brihan Mumbai Rs. 10,000; and (ii) where such suit or proceeding is instituted elsewhere, the amount upto which the Judge or Court specified in Clause (b) is invested with jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, under any law for the time being in force;

(c) an order made upon an application for fixing the standard rent or for determining the permitted increases in respect of any premises except in a suit or proceeding in which an appeallies;

(d) an order made upon an application by a tenant for a direction to restore any essential supply or service in respect of the premises let to him.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be made within thirty days from the date of the decree or order, as the case may be:

Provided that, in computing the period of limitation prescribed by this sub-section the provisions contained in sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, so far as may be, apply.

(3) No further appeal shall lie against any decision in appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document