( 1 ) THE only controversy emerges in the matter : whether the arrears of rent due to the landlords would come within the sweep of Sec. 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 or not?

( 2 ) FEW facts of the matter are - the present respondents being landlords filed a Civil Suit in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad being HRP Suit No. 875 of 1997 for the eviction of rented premises against the present applicant which is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. In the above suit, the plaintiffs i. e. present opponents filed an Application at Exh. 37 under Sec. 11 (4) of the Bombay Rent Act for directing the tenant - present applicant to deposit the amount of the arrears of rent from 1/04/1997 upto the date it had fallen due, amounting to Rs. 1,01,250/and that directing the tenant to deposit Rs. 6,750. 00 regularly in each month for use and occupation of the rented premises. This application was vehemently opposed by the present applicant - original defendant on the ground that the defendant was a company and as a sick unit had filed a Reference to the BIFR under Section 15 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The said Reference was registered as Case No. 99 of 1997 and BIFR proposed to make an enquiry under Sec. 16 of the said Act. It was also the contention of the defendant that according to Sec. 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, no suit for the recovery of money can be filed or proceeded with against the present defendant. The Trial Court upheld the contention of the defendant and held that a Reference to the BIFR was made and enquiry was contemplated and, therefore, Sec. 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was attracted, which creates bar against the recovery of money of the arrears of rent also and, therefore, the court below dismissed the application of the landlords.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved, the plaintiffs - present opponents filed a Revision Application being Civil Revision Application No. 15 of 1999 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. While setting aside the reasoning of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court came to believe after relying on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LIMITED vs. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, MADRAS, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1439 that the proceeding of eviction instituted by the landlord against the tenant is not covered under Sec. 22 (1) of the Act. Further, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court while replying the argument on behalf of the then opponent - the present applicant in respect of the Amendment in 1994 in Sec. 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, that the wording "no suit for the recovery of money" go with the latter part of the amendment and relates only to the liability arising out of the enforcement of any security against the industrial company. Ultimately, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad held that the present recovery of arrears of rent would not be barred under Sec. 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and hence the Appellate Bench allowed the Application at Exh. 37. Since there was no evidence to fix interim rent less than the agreed rent of Rs. 6,750. 00 the Appellate Bench held that Rs. 6,750. 00 was the interim rent and directed the tenant to pay the arrears of Rs. 1,01,250. 00 and to deposit Rs. 6,750. 00 per month as interim rent in the Court.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, this Revision Application is filed by the original defendants i. e. tenant company.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. A. K. Clerk on behalf of the applicant and learned counsel Mr. U. D. Shukla who appears on Caveat on behalf of the landlords were heard at length.

( 6 ) MR. Abilash Clerk put much stress on the wording "no suit for th