1. The Petitioner- Original Defendant has challenged the impugned order dated 7th July, 2008 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay, whereby, against an order in interim notice 2014/2007 dated 08/02/2008, passed by the learned Trial Judge, has allowed an amendment application to the plaint by holding that the Revision is tenable.

2. The application for amendment to give better particulars of subsequent developments in consonance with the pleadings already made in the plaint was moved by the Respondent-Plaintiff. The same was rejected by holding that it is inconsistent and contrary to the averments already made in the plaint and it would cause prejudice and injustice to the other side. The pleadings are completed and the issues are framed. But, no affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief filed, when the present application for amendment was moved. The Respondent’s- Plaintiff’s Revision Application against the said order was opposed by contending that the Revision under such interlocutory order is not tenable and also on the ground that it substantially affects the rights of the Plaintiff.

3. The relevant Section/portion of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, "Maharashtra Rent Act") is as under:- Section 34 (4):- Where no appeal lies under this section from a decree or order in any suit or proceeding in Brihan Mumbai, the Bench of two Judges specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) and elsewhere, the District Court, may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order made was according to law, call for the case in which such decree or order was made and the bench or Court aforesaid or the District Judge or any Judge to whom the case may be referred by the District Judge, shall pass such order with respect thereto as it or he thinks fit."

4. Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, "Bombay Rent Act") read thus:- Section 3) 29 (3):- Where no appeal lies under this section from a decree or order in any suit or proceeding in Greater Bombay the bench to two Judge specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) and elsewhere the District Court, may for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order made was according to law, call for the case in which such decree or order was made and (the bench or Court aforesaid or the District Judge or any Judge to whom the case may be referred by the District Judge, shall) pass such order with respect thereto as (it or he thinks fit.)

5. By the impugned order it is held that the Revision is tenable and thereby allowed the amendment application filed by the Respondent-Plaintiff. Therefore, the present Writ Petition by placing strong reliance mainly on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.258 of 2007, dated 5th August, 2008. (M/s. J.M.Constructions Vs. Dr.Rustom P.Patel & Ors.) (S.B) and Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir Vs. Rambhujarat Kshamapati @ Rambhujarat Chhampati, reported in 1982 (i) Bom. C.R. 832, (D.B.). In these two judgments (Supra) the orders of amendment to the pleadings were involved. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in both these judgments, it is held that the Revision against the order of amendment being interlocutory and procedural in nature, not maintainable, but at the same stroke it is clearly observed in both these judgments that order which are substantially affecting the rights of the parties can be challenged in Revision.

6. There are other judgments of this Court whereby, it has been held that a revision against an interlocutory order when the substantial rights are involved, and when appeal is not maintainable or barred, is maintainable. Even prior to this in Sayarabi Sayyad Abdul Ajij (Deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Shri Abdul Rashid Abdul Majid, 2004 (4) All M.R. 581 (S.B