( 1 ) A tenant whose Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 1979 against the order dated 21/11/1978 passed by the trial Court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1977 dismissing the fresh application for fixation of the standard rent was dismissed by the District Judge Junagadh by his order dated 4/07/1981 holding that the said fresh application was not maintainable has come in revision before this Court raising an interesting contention namelyis a fresh application for fixation of standard rent on the same cause of action maintainable even though the previous application: for fixation of standard rent is dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and no application for setting the dismissal aside as contemplated under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed ?some of the undisputed facts in the present case are that the landlord had served a notice dated 26/12/1972 on the tenant. The tenant had given a reply dated 17/01/1973 and had raised the dispute regarding the standard rent. The tenant thereafter had filed Civil Misc. Application No. 13 of 1973 for fixation of standard rent. The rent up to 31/01/1977 was deposited in Court as per the order of the Court passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 13 of 1973. The said application for fixation of standard rent was dismissed for default on 25/02/1977 The aforesaid fresh application for fixation of standard rent also came to be dismissed as stated above.

( 2 ) CHAPTER IV-A of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Control Rules) provides for the procedure to be followed by a Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 in suits proceedings etc. Rule 9-A thereof provides as under:" A court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small cause Courts Act 1887 shall follow the practice and procedure prescribed for the time being by or under the said Act in trying and hearing (1) suits and proceedings relating to the recovery of rent or charges for boarding; lodging or other service provided in a hotel or lodging house or the recovery of possession of any premises when the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed (Rs. 2,000 and (2) proceedings for execution of any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceeding. Rule 9-B of the Bombay Rent Control Rules provides as under:"in miscellaneous applications a Court of Small causes established under the Provincial Small cause courts Act 1887 shall follow as far as may be and with the necessary modifications the procedure applicable to suits or proceedings referred to in rule 9-A as if such applications were suits of the description referred to therein. "

( 3 ) THUS as per Chapter IV-A of the Bombay Rent Control Rules a Court of Small Causes established under the provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 has to follow as far as may be and with necessary modifications the procedure applicable to suits or Proceedings referred to in Rule 9-A as if such applications were suits of the description referred to therein. As per Rule 9-A a Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 has to follow the practice and procedure provided for the time being by or under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 Turning to sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 one finds that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act be the procedure followed in a court of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits. In order L of the Civil Procedure Code order 1x is not shown as one of the provisions not applicable to the Court of Small Causes. The aforesaid provisions therefore provide that order IX Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to applications for fixation of standard rent as th