( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application raises a question of jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain Revision Applications against interlocutory orders made in suits governed by sec. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are as under:- The plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No. 245 of 1961 in the Civil Court at Bhuj for recovery of possession of the suit premises. It is not in dispute before me that the subject matter of the suit is governed by sec. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. The grounds on which the plaintiffs seek decree for possession are:- (1) unlawful sub letting of the suit premises by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2 and (2) the irregularity in payment of rent and consequent breach of a term of tenancy. In course of the proceedings an application for amendment of plaint was made and it was granted. the said amendment the plaintiffs added one more ground in support of their claim for possession. It is non user of the suit premises for more than six months without any reasonable cause. The defendants filed in the first instance written statement to the plaint. It did not contain any plea for fixing standard rent of the suit premises. Later on in answer to the amended plaint they filed a further written statement wherein they raised the plea that standard rent of the suit premises be fixed. Pursuant to that plea having been taken by the defendants the learned Trial Judge raised issue No. 10a on the point. The plaintiffs thereafter made application Ex. 86 for deletion of issue No. 10a. That application was rejected. The plaintiffs therefore filed a revision application before the District Court at Bhuj challenging the said order made by the learned Trial Judge. The learned District Judge allowed that revision application and set aside the order made by the learned Trial Judge and directed that issue No. 10a be deleted.

( 3 ) IT is that order made by the learned District Judge which is challenged before me in this Civil Revision Application.

( 4 ) THE question which has been canvassed before me by Mr. Mankad relates to the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain a revision application of this type under sec. 29 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act. He has raised the question in the following terms. WHETHER a revision application lies to the District Court against an order refusing to delete an issue raised in a suit which is governed by the Bombay Rent Act. THIS very question was raised before the learned District Judge and he has answered it in the affirmative for the reasons stated in his judgment.

( 5 ) SEC. 31 of the Bombay Rent Act provides as follows. THE Courts specified in secs. 28 and 29 shall allow the prescribed procedure in trying and hearing suits proceedings applications and appeals and in executing orders made by them. ALL that sec. 31 of the Bombay Rent Act does is to render applicable the prescribed procedure to actions the subject matter of which is governed by the Bombay Rent Act. The word prescribe has been defined by sec. S (9) so as to mean prescribe by rules. Sec. 49 (2) (iii) empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of regulating the procedure to be followed in trying or hearing suits proceedings (including proceedings for execution of decrees and distress warrants) applications appeals and execution of orders. Turning to the Bombay Rent Rules framed by the State Government under the Bombay Rent Act I find different sets of procedure having been laid down for three different kinds of Courts. One set of procedure has been laid down in Chapter IV for being followed by the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad whose constitution is governed by the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. The second set of procedure has been laid down in Chapter IV-A of the Bombay Rent Rules for being followed by the Courts of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act 1887 and by the District Courts in appeals from their decisions.