( 1 ) ). THE present judgment and order is delivered in the context of my earlier orders dated 4th August 2000, llth August 2000 and 25th August 2000. The same are already on record, and therefore, I do not propose to reproduce the same.

( 2 ) ). Ms. Sudha Gangwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that she does not have the papers of the present case, and is therefore, unable to assist the Court in the matter. In the circumstances, I now proceed to deal with the matter on the basis of the record.

( 3 ) ). This is a revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act at the instance of the original tenants (defendants) in the suit.

( 4 ) ). The facts of the case and the judgment and order impugned in the present revision viz. , the decision of the Revisional Bench in Revision applications Nos. 34 and 36 of 1983 clearly indicates that the trial Court, while dealing with H. R. P. Suit No. 1664 of 1979, decided the landlords application Exh. 34 for determination of interim rent (and gave incidental directions) at Rs. 275. 00 per month. The trial Court also gave directions to the tenant to deposit Rs. 5000. 00 in the Court. Both the landlord and the tenant were ag