( 1 ) DEFRAUD the Court. See that the tenant succumbs to the pressure of circumstances and gives consent to enter into an unlawful agreement. Hush up the proceedings in Court and get the contract sealed by a super command of the Court. Then raise a plea of estoppel against tenant when he tries to raise a standard rent dispute. Can such a plea raised by a landlord be countenanced by the Court ? This in short is the question posed in these three revision applications.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 herein a Public Trust is the landlord of three different shops situated outside Sarangpur Gate near bridge Ahmedabad. Respondents herein filed three different Misc. Applications in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad and prayed that the standard rent of the suit shops occupied by them be fixed. The petitioners herein appear- ed in those proceedings and inter alia contended that earlier in Misc. Applications Nos. 1346 1345 and 1379 of 1974 filed by the respective tenants the standard rent was fixed and therefore the applications were not maintainable. The trial court decided the issue regarding the maintainability of the applications as a preliminary issue and held that the applications were not maintainable and the respondents were estopped from raising the dispute as regards standard rent in view of the decision in previous misc. applications referred to hereinabove. The respective tenants filed different civil revision applications being Civil Revision Applications Nos. 36 37 and 38 of 1981 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court reversed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad and ordered to remained the matters to the trial court for disposal according to law on merits. All the three civil revision applications were decided by a common judgment dated 10/09/1981 The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court followed the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. ABDULGANI and CO. V. GULAM HUSSAIN REPORTED IN 20 G. L. R. 827. According to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court the trial court was misled on a question of fact and there was a fraud on court inasmuch as though there was no dispute with regard to the standard rent the facts were misrepresented and on the basis of the misrepresentation the court was led to believe that there was a lis between the parties and that it was required to be resolved. It is a settled principle of law that fraud would vitiate everything and following that principle the lower appellate court held that the decree passed previously in Misc. Civil Applications Nos. 1345 1346 and 1379 of 1974 would not operate as bar against the applicants-tenants and they would not be precluded from filing another application praying that the standard rent of the premises be fixed in accordance with law. The appellate court came to the conclusion as stated above and ordered to reverse and set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial court and further directed the trial court to decide the matter in accordance with law. It is this judgment which is challenged by the original opponent-landlord in these three revision applications.

( 3 ) PARA> NOW the factual position may be looked at which is given hereinbelow in tabular form: Misc. Civil Application No.

Date of filing

Date of disposal

1345 of 1974

4-5-1974

4-5-1974

1346 of 1974

4-5-1974

4-5-1974

1379 of 1974

10-6-1974

12-6-1974

( 4 ) THE lower appellate court perused the Rojnama of each case certified copy of the application the affidavit filed in respect of the applicants vakalatnama filed by the parties and the admission purshis filed in each case. On perusal of the record the court came to the conclusion that there was no dispute whatsoever between the parties with regard to the tenancy or with regard to the standard rent. But a fake dispute was created for obtaining a consent decree. It would be interesting to note that the te