The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisability of decisions or orders passed in appeal under Section 8 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 is determined based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and relevant case laws, and the absence of an express or strong implied prohibition on the revisability.

R. Gogoi, J.

1. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the West Bengal State Weaver's Cooperative Society Limited and Ors. v. Bibha Basu Chowdhury and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) GLT 177, having held a Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of a final order passed by the appellate authority under Section 8 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be not maintainable and another Single Bench consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice having taken the view that the conclusions recorded in West Bengal State Weaver's Cooperative Society Limited (Supra) require an authoritative decision by a Larger Bench of this Court, the following question has been referred for our consideration and decision:

Whether the decision or order passed in appeal under Section 8 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure; or Section 8 of the Act, 1972 completely debars the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the revision against the decision or order passed by the Appellate Court under Section 8 of the Act, 1972?

2. Having set out the question referred, it may be apposite at this stage, to briefly notice the provisions of the Act, which would be relevant to answer the question referred:

Section 2(a) of the Act defines "Court" in the following terms:

Section 2(a)

"Court" means the Court of Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction in the area in which a house is situated which would be competent to pass a decree for the eviction of a tenant from that house,

Section 3 and 4 of the Act deal with the subject of standard/fair rent and set out the procedure for determination of standard rent. Section 5 enumerates the circumstances in which an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made by a Court. Section 6 of the Act enumerates the duties of the landlord and Section 7 confers power on the Court to require the landlord to perform his statutory duties under Section 6, in case of neglect or refusal to do so at the request of the tenant. Section 8 being the relevant provision of the Act with regard to the interpretation of which an authoritative pronouncement has been sought may best be extracted hereunder:

8. Appeal: A landlord or a tenant aggrieved by any decision or order of the Court under the provisions of Section 4, 5 and 7(2)of this Act shall have a right of appeal against the same as if such decision or order were a decree in a suit for ejectment of the tenant from the house and such appellate Court's decision shall be final.

3. Prior to the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of West Bengal State Weaver's Corporative Society Limited (supra), by virtue of the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Basak v. Deo Narayan Prasad and Ors. reported in 1984 Gau 37, no Second Appeal against the appellate judgment rendered under Section 8 of the Act was maintainable and instead Revision Applications under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure against such appellate orders were being entertained by this Court. The decision in the case of West Bengal State Weaver's Cooperative Society Limited (supra), therefore, constitute a break with the practice prevailing in this Court for nearly two decades. As the said decision also had the effect of rendering a large number of pending Civil Revisions futile, the present Reference was considered necessary.

4. A reading of the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of West Bengal State Weaver's Cooperative Society Limited (supra) would show that the learned Single Judge after holding that though the finality given by the statute to an appellate order, by itself, will not oust the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless such ouster is either expressly made or follows by necessary implication, took the further view that having regard to the scheme of the Act