( 1 ) CAN a subordinate Court be permitted to read a judgment of its superior Court differently and in a twisted manner so as to assign a meaning altogether different from its apparent meaning on the face of it ? Will such attempt on the part of such subordinate Court not amount to destruction of judicial discipline and contempt of its superior Court ? These questions come to the forefront in the context of the challenge to the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 24/02/1994 below the application at Exh. 68 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1976 in this revisional application under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act for brief) read with Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the impugned order, the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court directed both the parties to argue the entire appeal on all grounds after ordering the application to be decided along with the appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this application move in a narrow compass. The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the original tenant and the respondents are the