( 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 heirs and legal representatives of the original landlord. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the petitioners as the tenant and the respondents as the landlord. The landlord filed a suit in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad for eviction of the tenant on several grounds. It came to be registered as H. R. P. Suit No. 709 of 1970. Several grounds were urged. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for possession. The landlord carried the matter in appeal. It came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1976. In appeal, an additional ground was pressed into service for the purpose of recovery of possession from the tenant and that ground was acquisition of a suitable accommodation by the tenant within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1) (1) of the Act. The Appellate Bench did not accept any of the grounds for eviction of the tenant but passed the decree of eviction in favour of the landlord on the ground of disclaimer of the title of the landlord on the part of the tenant. The aggrieved tenant thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 29 (2) of the Act. The proceeding came to be registered as Civil Revision Application No. 519 of 1980. By the judgment rendered on 15/07/1992 in the aforesaid revisional application, this Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and remanded the matter to it for deciding the issue of the disclaimer of the title of the landlord with respect to the rented premises. A copy of the aforesaid judgment of this Court is at Annexure-A to this application. Pursuant thereto, the appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court was restored to file. It framed the necessary issue and remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties including an opportunity to bring on record certain other material. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this application. It appears that the decision on the issue was received from the trial Court by the Appellate Bench. It appears that the appeal was heard also for some time. On behalf of the petitioners herein, an application was made on 24/02/1994 requesting the Appellate bench to confine arguments on the issue of disclaimer of the title of the landlord by the tenant. It came to be taken on record as Exhibit 68 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 379 of 1976. By the order passed therebelow on 24/02/1994, the learned judges of the Appellate Bench ordered hearing of the application with the appeal with a direction to both the parties to argue the entire appeal on all grounds. That aggrieved the present petitioners. They have, therefore, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 29 (2) of the Act for questioning its correctness