( 1 ) THE present revision is one under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents; Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the said act) wherein the petitioner is the original plaintiff-landlord and respondents are original defendants-tenants.

( 2 ) THE pertinent facts, in brief, leading to the present Revision are as under:2. 1 The petitioner-landlord had filed civil Suit No. 36/77 against the tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and for a decree of eviction against the tenant-on various grounds available to the said landlord under the said Act. 2. 2 This suit, viz. Regular Civil Suit No. 36/77 was filed on 21st February 1977. However, prior to the filing of the suit the tenant had already filed, on 6th April 1976, misc. Application No, 10/76 for determination of the standard rent of the leased premises under Section 11 of the said act. 2. 3 The trial court heard and decided both the suit as well as the application by a common judgment and order, whereby the suit was allowed and a decree for eviction was passed against the tenant, on the basis that the standard rent in respect of the leased premises was Rs. 9/- per month, and on a computation derived from this figure as the standard rent, it was found that the tenant was in arrears of such standard rent for more than six months. 2. 4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the tenant preferred separate proceedings before the District Court, viz. Regular Civil Appeal No. 128/79 arising from the eviction decree passed against him by the trial court, the said appeal being under Section 29 (1) of the said Act. The tenant also preferred Civil Revision application No. 1/80 under Section 29 (3) of the said Act, arising from the decision in misc. Application No. 10/76. The District court heard both the proceedings together and decided the same by common judgment and order, whereby the appeal was allowed and the trial court decree for eviction was set aside. This was done on the basis that the Revision Application No. 1/80 was also allowed whereby the District Court determined the standard rent of the leased premises at Rs. 4/- per month, by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the trial court in Misc. Application No. 10/76 where the standard rent had been fixed at rs. 9/- per month. 2. 5 At this stage it may. be noted that the landlord had earlier preferred Civil revision Application No. 307/82 in this court challenging the decision of the district Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 128/79 whereby the suit vas dismissed. This revision came to be summarily dismissed by this court (Coram: P. D. Desai. J.) by order dated 26th February 1982. Thus that question is no longer open to the landlord, and the dismissal of the suit for eviction stands confirmed. 2. 6 The present revision under Section 29 (2) of the said Act seeks to challenge the decision of the District Court in Revision application No. 1/80, which is merely on the questioji of determination of standard rent.

( 3 ) AT the outset I may note thai Section 29 of the said Act provides for remedies available to the parties under the rent Act in respect of various orders that may be passed by a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 of the said Act, viz. a rent Court. Section 29 (1) provides for an appeal, to the courts specified in the said sub-section, and in respect of the orders not specifically excluded by the proviso to sub- section (1 ). Obviously, under Clause (iii) of the said Proviso, no appeal would the from a decision of the rent court fixing the standard rent under Section 11 of the said act. It is precisely for this reason that the landlord had preferred a revision to the district Court under Section 29 (3) of the said Act. It is this revisional order of the district Court which is sought to be challenged by way of the present revision filed under Section 29 (2) of the said Act

( 4 ) OBVIOUSLY, a second revision; purportedly filed under Section 29 (2) of