( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner (tenant) against the opponent (landlord) against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 1964 filed by the petitioner against the opponent for determination of the standard rent in respect of the premises leased to him by the opponent. The learned trial Judge decided the matter on affidavits The impugned order reads: heard Mr. H. B. Desai and Mrs. J. H. Shah. Read the affidavits. Standard rent is fixed at Rs. 75/per month. Parties to bear their costs.

( 2 ) IT was the petitioners contention that rent agreed between the parties was excessive and it should be fixed at Rs. 35/per month. It was the opponents contention that he had let out the suit premises to one Navinchandra B. Desai on 27th May 1954 at a concessional rate of Rs. 61/per month. When that tenant vacated he let out the suit premises to one Harihar Shukla on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/per month. That tenant did not actually occupy the suit premises. He handed - over possession of the leased premises on 15th July 1959 and it was thereafter that the petitioner had taken on lease that premises.

( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court the tenant filed Civil Revision Application No. 53 of 1966 and it was heard by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad and the aforesaid order has been confirmed by it. The petitioner-tenant has therefore preferred the present revision application to this Court.

( 4 ) MR. B. R. Shah appearing for the petitioner-tenant has stated that his main contention is that the procedure prescribed has not been followed. Such a standard rent application which is a miscellaneous application could not have been decided on affidavits. That being the position Mr. Shah submitted that the decision cannot be sustained. He has invited my attention to the relevant rules framed by the State Government in exercise of its power under sec. 49 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act ). Those rules are the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules 1948 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act Rules ). In rule 2 (b) miscellaneous application has been defined as under: Miscellaneous application means an application for fixing the standard rent except where the said relief is claimed in a pending suit or proceeding an application for deter mining the permitted increases and application by a tenant for reinstatement In the instant case we are concerned with an application made by the petitioner-tenant for fixing the standard rent as contemplated by sec. 11 of the Bombay Rent Act. It is therefore undoubtedly a miscellaneous application.

( 5 ) CHAPTER IV of the Bombay Rent Act Rules deals with procedure to be followed by the Court of Small Causes Bombay for suits proceedings appeals etc. Rule 5 reads:procedure for suits the value of the subject-matter of which does not exceed Rs. 3 0 and for Proceedings for execution of decrees and orders passed therein and for distress warrants. In such of the following suits and proceedings as are cognizable by the Court of Small Causes Bombay on the date of the coming into force of those Rules namely: (1) Suits relating to the recovery of rents or charges for boarding lodging or other service provided in a hotel or a lodging house when the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed Rs. 3 0 (2) proceedings under Chapters VII and VIII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 1882 and (3) proceeding for execution of any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceeding. the Court of Small Causes Bombay shall follow the practice and procedure provided for the time being (a) in the said Act except Chapter VI thereof and (b) in the rules made under sec. 9 of the said Act. Admittedly if rule 5 is to be read alo