Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Revision Application No. 461 of 1982

Judges

P.S Shah, J.

Acts

Presidency Small Cause Court Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule-1 of the said Rules providesThe portions of the Civil P.C Act V of 1908
section 114 read with Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Civil P.C 1908 (for short called the Code).2.
BOMBAY RENTS HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT 1947
PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT
provisions of the Code including S. 114 and Order XLVII of the Code
Presidency Small Cause Courts, Act, 1882. Ss. 41, 42 and 43
provisions of Rr. 5 and 7 of the Rent Control Rules
section 114 read with R. 1 of O. 47 of the Code.4.
S. 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
provisions of the Rent Act and the Rules
PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT 1887
sub-section (2) of S. 28 of the Rent Act,
provisions of Chap. 2 of the Rent Act
5, 7 and 8 of the Rent Control Rules,
Rule 5 of the Rent Control Rules
provisions of the Rent Act, S. 28
Section 29 of the Rent Act
section 11 of the Rent Act.
(c) of cl. (11) of S. 5. Rules
S. 28 of the Rent Act
S. 49 of the Rent Act,
S. 11 of the Rent Act.
5, 7, 8 and 9. Rule 5
Rent Control Rules.
Rules 5, 7 and 9
1,000/-.8. Rule 8

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondents are landlords and the petitioners are tenants of premises known as "National Hotel" at Grant Road. The agreed rent was Rs. 1,790 per month. The tenants filed an application in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for fixation of standard rent under S. 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Rent Act"). By order dated 22 September 1971 the Court of Small Causes fixed the standard rent at Rs. 1,017 per month.

On 4 November 1971 the landlords filed an application for review of that order on the ground that they had discovered additional evidence to prove actual construction expenses. The trial Court rejected the review application as time-barred. The landlords preferred a revision to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The Appellate Bench held the review application was within time and also held that the review application was competent, remanding the matter to the trial Court to decide the review on merits. The tenants (petitioners) challenged that appellate order by filing the present civil revision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, exercising jurisdiction under the Rent Act, has jurisdiction to entertain an application for review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("the Code").
Whether the Rent Act and the rules framed under it (including the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules, 1948) or the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and its rules permit the application of the Code's review provisions to proceedings under the Rent Act.
Whether Rule 16 of the Rent Control Rules (which directs that procedure questions not provided for by the rules should, "as far as possible," be guided by the provisions of the Code) can be invoked to import the Code's review provisions into proceedings under the Rent Act.
Whether the Court of Small Causes can, in the absence of statutory power to review, exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code in exceptional circumstances to grant review or relief equivalent to review.

Arguments of the Parties

Tenants' (petitioners') arguments (as presented by Mr. Mirchandani)

The review application filed by the landlords was not maintainable because there is no provision either in the Rent Act or in the rules framed thereunder conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes to review an order passed under Section 11 of the Rent Act.
Because the statutory scheme and rules exclude the review provisions of the Code, the Appellate Bench should not have treated the review application as competent but should instead have decided the revision on merits as to standard rent.
He did not dispute the Appellate Bench's findings on limitation; his objection was limited to maintainability of the review application and jurisdictional competence to review.

Landlords' (respondents') arguments (as presented by Mr. Dighe)

The landlords sought review of the trial Court's standard rent order on the ground that they had discovered additional evidence bearing on actual construction costs and therefore sought to lead that evidence by way of review.
Reliance was placed on Rule 16 of the Rent Control Rules to contend that where the rules do not specifically provide for procedure, the Court should be guided by the Code; thus the Code's review provisions (S. 114 and O. XLVII) would apply to proceedings under the Rent Act.
As an alternative, it was urged that even if no express statutory right of review exists, the Court of Small Causes could, in exceptional cases, invoke inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code to do justice between the parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273	The principle that power to review is not inherent and must be conferred by law, either expressly or by necessary implication.	The court relied on this authority to emphasize that, in the absence of statutory or rule-based conferral of review jurisdiction, the Small Cause Court cannot assume review powers by implication.
Kutinha v. Nathal Pinto Bai, AIR 1941 Mad 272	The principle that unless a statute provides review, a court cannot review its own judgment except in very exceptional circumstances (for example, inadvertence or false representation by court officers).	The court cited this decision in relation to the submission invoking Section 151 of the Code, concluding that the circumstances in the present case (discovery of further evidence) did not amount to the exceptional situations contemplated by the precedent for exercising inherent powers to review.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a textual and structural analysis of the Rent Act, the rules made under it, and the rules of procedure applicable to Small Cause Courts. The reasoning proceeded in the following steps:

Statutory framework: The court noted that Section 28 of the Rent Act confers jurisdiction on specified Courts (including the Court of Small Causes, Bombay) to decide applications and deal with claims under the Rent Act; Section 29 provides for appeal and contains provisos limiting appealability; Section 31 requires the specified courts to follow prescribed procedure; and Section 49 empowers the State Government to make rules to give effect to the Act, including procedure.
Rules under the Rent Act: The State framed the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules, 1948. These rules define "Code" as the Civil P.C., and set out distinct chapters governing procedure for the Court of Small Causes (Chapter IV, etc.). Specific rules in Chapter IV (Rules 5, 7, 8 and 9) specify which procedural practices the Court of Small Causes must follow in various categories of suits and miscellaneous applications.
Interaction with Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and rules: The High Court, under Section 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, framed rules which expressly omitted the Code's review provisions (Section 114 and Order XLVII) from application to the Presidency Small Cause Court. The schedule to those rules shows that the review provisions are not applied to the Small Cause Courts.
Effect of the express exclusion: Because the High Court's rules (applicable to Small Cause Courts) expressly excluded the review provisions of the Code, and because the Rent Control Rules require the Court of Small Causes to follow the procedure in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and its rules (subject to specified exceptions), the combined statutory and rule scheme did not provide for review jurisdiction—neither expressly nor by necessary implication.
Rejection of Rule 16 argument: The court rejected the landlords' contention based on Rule 16 of the Rent Control Rules (which states that, where procedure is not provided, the Court shall, "as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code"). The court held that Rule 16 does not ipso facto import all provisions of the Code into Rent Act proceedings, and it cannot override express exclusions made by the High Court's rules under Section 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. Allowing Rule 16 to operate as contended would render Rules 5 and 7 of the Rent Control Rules redundant and would conflict with the express exclusions of review provisions.
Power under Section 151 of the Code: The court considered whether inherent powers under Section 151 could supply jurisdiction to review in exceptional circumstances. Even assuming such powers could be available, the court concluded that the facts here (discovery of additional evidence after the decision) did not constitute the kind of exceptional circumstances (such as inadvertence or fraud by court officers) that justify use of Section 151 to review a judgment. The court relied on the Madras decision in Kutinha for this proposition.
Conclusion of reasoning: On the combined reading of the Rent Act, the Rent Control Rules, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and the High Court's procedural rules, there is neither express nor implied authority for the Small Cause Court to entertain a review application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code in proceedings under the Rent Act.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The civil revision is allowed. The Court held that the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Civil P.C. in proceedings under the Rent Act; accordingly, the review application filed by the landlords in the trial court was not maintainable. The impugned order dated 7 July 1982 of the Appellate Bench remanding the matter back to the trial court to decide the review application was quashed and set aside.

Direct consequences for the parties:

The landlords' application for review (to permit them to lead additional evidence) is rejected for want of jurisdiction.
The appellate bench's remand order is quashed. The appellate bench is directed to proceed to hear and dispose of the revision application on the merits as far as the decision in the standard rent application is concerned, in accordance with law.
No order as to costs was made.

Broader implications: The opinion does not articulate the setting of any new precedent beyond applying established principles (that review is not an inherent power and that express statutory or rule-based conferral is required). The decision's immediate legal effect is to deny review jurisdiction to the Small Cause Court in Rent Act proceedings under the facts and law analyzed in this opinion.

Disposition

Rule made absolute. Revision allowed. The impugned appellate order dated 7 July 1982 is quashed and set aside, and the appellate bench is ordered to proceed with the revision on the merits.

Show full summary ...

National Hotel And Others v. Mrs. Rukaiyabai And Others

1. This civil revision application raises a pure question of law as to whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, exercising jurisdiction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short called “the Rent Act”) has jurisdiction to entertain an application for review under section 114 read with Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Civil P.C 1908 (for short called “the Code”).

2. The facts in so far as they are material are these. The respondents are the landlords and the petitioners are the tenants of the hotel premises known as ‘National Hotel’ at Grant Road. The agreed rent of the premises is Rs. 1,790/- per month. The tenants filed an application in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for fixation of standard rent under S. 11 of the Rent Act. By order dt. Sept. 22, 1971, the Court of Small Causes fixed standard rent of the premises at Rs. 1,017/- per month. On Nov. 4, 1971, the respondents filed an application for review of the said order. Whereas the original order of the Court of Small Causes was passed on the basis of the estimated cost of construction of the building, the review was sought on the ground that the landlords have discovered further evidence on the basis of which they wanted to prove the standard rent on the actual expenses for construction of the building by producing additional evidence. The review application was rejected by the trial Court on the preliminary ground that it was time barred. Being aggrieved by both the orders, namely, the one whereby the Court of Small Causes had fixed the standard rent and the other whereby the Court of Small Causes rejected the review application, the landlords preferred a revision application before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. In revision, the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, disagreeing with the view taken by the trial Court, held that the application for review was filed within limitation. It was urged on behalf of the tenants that the review application was not maintainable in the absence of any provision of law conferring jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to review an order passed by it under section 11 of the Rent Act. The Appellate Bench, however, rejected this contention of the tenants and held that the review application was competent. In the result, without going into the merits as regards the standard rent, the Appellate Bench allowed the revision application and remanded the matter back to the trial Court to dispose of the review application on merits. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Bench, the tenants have preferred this civil revision.

3. Mr. Mirchandani, the learned Counsel appearing for the tenants, did not dispute before me the correctness of the findings of the Appellate Bench on the question of limitation. He, however, submitted that the landlords' application for review was not maintainable in law and, therefore, all that the Appellate Bench should have done was to proceed with the hearing of the revision application on merits as regards the standard rent fixed by the trial Court. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that there is no provision either in the Rent Act or in the Rules framed thereunder giving a right to file an application for review under section 114 read with R. 1 of O. 47 of the Code.

4. Now, it is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication, see P.N Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273. It will, therefore, be necessary to trace the source of power either in the rent act or the rules framed thereunder or some other provision of law under which the Court of Small Causes, exercising jurisdiction in proceedings under the Rent Act, could exercise powers of review.

5. Turning to the provisions of the Rent Act, S. 28 thereof confers jurisdiction on the Courts mentioned therein. Under the said provision, in Greater Bombay, the Court of Small Causes, Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which the provisions of Chap. 2 of the Rent Act shall apply, or between a licensor and a licensee relating to the recovery of the licence fee or charge and to decide any application made under this Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions. S. 28 of the Rent Act confers similar jurisdiction to the Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for that area and elsewhere to the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate or, if there is no such Civil Judge, the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate. Except to the extent provided by sub-section (2) of S. 28 of the Rent Act, no other Court has jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question. Section 29 of the Rent Act provides for an appeal against a decree or order made by the competent Court under S. 28. Under the proviso to S. 29, certain decrees or orders are made non-appealable. It is also provided that there shall be no second appeal against an order passed in the appeal. Then, section 31 provides that the Courts specified in Ss. 28 and 29 shall follow the prescribed procedure in trying and hearing suits, proceedings, applications and appeals and in executing orders made by them. Under S. 49 of the Rent Act, the State Government is empowered to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act and such rules may provide for the manner and procedure to be followed in trying or hearing suits, proceedings (including proceedings for execution of decrees and distress warrants), applications, appeals and execution of orders.

6. The provisions in the rent act themselves thus do not provide for the remedy of review by the court and one has to turn to the rules framed under S. 49 of the Act. In exercise of these powers the State Government has framed rules called ‘The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules, 1948’. Under R. 2(a) ‘Code’ means the Civil P.C 1908, and under R. 2(b) ‘Miscellaneous application’ means an application for fixing the standard rent, except where the said relief is claimed in a pending suit or proceeding, an application for determining the permitted increases, an application by a tenant for reinstatement, an application for a direction for the restoration of any essential supply or service or an application by a member of the tenant's family under sub-cl. (c) of cl. (11) of S. 5. Rules relating to the procedure to be followed by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, in suits, proceedings, appeals etc. are contained in Chapter IV. Similarly, the procedure to be followed by Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, in suits, proceedings etc. and by the District Court in appeals are contained in Chap. IV-A and the procedure to be followed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division or Senior Division) in suits, proceedings etc. and by the District Court in appeals are contained in Chap. V. Under the head ‘General’ in Chap. VII contains only one Rule viz. Rule 16 which provides that in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for by the Rules, the Court shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code. The scheme of Chapters IV, IV-A and V is broadly the same. It would be sufficient for our purpose to refer to the rules and procedure incorporated in Chap IV. The relevant rules in Chap. IV are Rr. 5, 7, 8 and 9. Rule 5 provides for procedure for suits the value of the subject matter of which does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- and for proceedings for execution of decrees and orders passed therein and for distress warrants. The rule runs thus—

5. In such of the following suits and proceedings as are cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, on the date of the coming into force of these Rules, namely:

(1) suits relating to the recovery of rents or charges for boarding, lodging or other service provided in hotel or a lodging house when the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed Rs. 3,000/-:

(2) Proceedings under Chapters VII and VIII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, and

(3) proceeding for execution of any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceedings, the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, shall follow the practice and procedure provided for the time being (a) in the said Act, except Chap. VI thereof, and (b) in the rules made under Section 9 of the said Act.

7. Under R. 7 which provides for the procedure to be followed in Misc. applications. It is prescribed that in such proceedings the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, shall follow as far as may be and with the necessary modification, practice and procedure applicable to suits referred to in R. 5 as if such applications were suits for sums not exceeding Rs. 1,000/-.

8. Rule 8 prescribes the procedure for suits and proceedings which are not covered by Rr. 5 and 7 and it is provided that in such suits and proceedings the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, shall, as far as may be and with the necessary modifications, follow the procedure prescribed for a court of first instance by the Code, including Order XXXVII as modified in its application to the State.

9. Under Rule 9 in appeals under Section 29(1) of the Act the Court shall, as far as may be and with the necessary modifications, follow the practice and procedure prescribed for appeals from original decrees by the Code. It would be clear that these rules do not themselves provide for a review application. The combined effect of Rules 5, 7 and 9 is that the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, is required to follow the practice and procedure provided for the time being (a) in the said Act, except Chapter VI thereof, and (b) in the rules made under Section 9 of the said Act.

10. Section 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, inter alia provides that the High Court may, from time to time by rules having the force of law prescribe the procedure to be followed and the practice to be observed by the Small Cause Court. Pursuant to the powers conferred on the High Court it has framed rules of procedure called ‘The Presidency Small Cause Court Rules’. Sub-rule (2) of Rule-1 of the said Rules provides—

“The portions of the Civil P.C Act V of 1908 as modified in its application to the State of Bombay up to the 30th Dec. 1957, specified in the 1st column of Schedule hereto annexed shall, subject to the additions, alterations and modifications specified in the 2nd and 3rd columns of such schedule, extend and shall be applied to the Small Cause Court and the procedure prescribed thereby shall be the procedure followed in the Court in all suits cognizable by it except where such procedure is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed by any specific provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.”

11. Turning to the schedule of the said rules it is clear that the provisions relating to the review contained in S. 114 and O. XLVII of the Civil P.C are expressly omitted from application to the proceedings before the Presidency Small Cause Court. The Schedule contains two separate columns. In the first column portion of the Civil P.C extending to the Court are mentioned while the second column describes the additions, alterations and modifications to the particular portions of the C.P.C mentioned in the first column of the schedule. On a reading of these columns in the Schedule indicates that the provisions of the review contained in S. 114 are expressly omitted. Under the column ‘portion of the Civil P.C extending to the Court’ whereas a reference to the review provisions in Part VIII of the Civil P.C (which included S. 114) are expressly mentioned, there is no reference whatsoever to O. XLVII. The effect is that neither the provisions of S. 114 nor the provisions of O. XLVII of the Civil P.C are applicable to the Small Cause Court, Bombay. In other words, it is clear that as far as the practice and the procedure provided in the rules made under S. 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act are concerned, the review provisions in the Code are expressly excluded. As is seen above, Rule 5 of the Rent Control Rules also refers to the applicability of the procedure provided in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, except Chap. VI thereof. Chap. VI does not refer to the powers of review but anyway, the applicability of the provisions contained in the said Chapter have been expressly excluded by R. 5 of the Rent Control Rules. However, a reference must be made to the provisions contained in Chap. VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts, Act, 1882. Ss. 41, 42 and 43 only are relevant for our purpose. S. 41 invests the Court of Small Causes the jurisdiction to entertain and try suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in Greater Bombay, or relating to the recovery of the licence fee or charges or rent therefor, irrespective of the value of the subject-matter of such suits or proceedings. S. 42 provides for appeals. S. 43 provides—

“In all suits, appeals and proceedings under this Chapter, the Small Cause Court shall, as far as possible and except as herein otherwise provided, follow the procedure prescribed by the Civil P.C 1908.”

12. S. 43, however, will have to be read along with S. 9 of the Act which confers power on the High Court to frame rules or procedure to be observed by the Small Cause Court and as mentioned above the provisions in the Code relating to the review have been expressly omitted so far as the suits and proceedings in the Small Cause Courts are concerned. The next result is that neither under the Rent Act nor under the Rules framed thereunder nor under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act or the Rules framed thereunder is there a provision conferring the power of review on the Small Cause Courts in the proceedings under the Rent Act. As held by the Supreme Court the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The provisions discussed above rule out any such power being conferred even by implication.

13. Mr. Dighe, however, placed reliance on R. 16 of the Rent Control Rules which provides that in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for by the rules the court shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code. According to Mr. Dighe, R. 16 which is a general provision would clearly extend operation of the provisions for review contained in the Civil P.C to all proceedings under the Rent Act. It is not possible to accept this contention. It would be obvious that R. 16 does not ipso facto extend the provisions of the Code to the proceedings under the Rent Act. Nor does it have the effect of overriding the provisions framed by the High Court under S. 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act which are expressly made applicable to the proceedings under the rent act by the provisions contained in the rules in Chap. VI. The rule merely says that the court is to be guided by the provisions contained in the Code, if any question relating to the procedure does not specifically provide or rules arise in a proceeding before it. There is no question of invoking these provisions having regard to the fact that the rules framed by the High Court expressly lay down that the provisions regarding review are not to apply to the proceedings in the Small Cause Court. If the interpretation as is sought to be put on R. 16 by the learned counsel is accepted it would make the provisions of Rr. 5 and 7 of the Rent Control Rules redundant, particularly having regard to the fact that it is specifically provided in these Rules that the Small Cause Court has to follow the procedure laid down in the Rules framed by the High Court. It must be presumed that the legislature was aware of the fact that certain provisions of the Code including S. 114 and Order XLVII of the Code have been expressly excluded under the Rules framed by the High Court and if it intended to override the rules framed by the High Court in respect of the proceedings falling under the Rr. 5, 7 and 8 of the Rent Control Rules, the wording of S. 16 would have been different. The expressions such as ‘as far as possible’ and ‘be guided’ used in R. 16 would show that the provision is not intended to confer power to review by resorting to S. 114 or O. XLVII of the Code. As indicated earlier, R. 16 can have no application when express provision is made excluding certain provisions contained in the Code.

14. On a consideration of the provisions of the Rent Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and the Rules of Procedure framed by the High Court thereunder it would appear that the Small Cause Court has no power of review in proceedings under the Rent Act. There is neither any express nor any implied provision from which it can be said that the Small Cause Court is invested with the jurisdiction to entertain an application for review as contemplated under S. 114 read with O. XLVII of the Civil P.C It would, therefore, follow that the review application filed by the landlord in the trial court is not maintainable.

15. Mr. Dighe urged that even though there is no legal provision for making an application for review, still the court is not divested of its inherent powers under S. 151 of the Code, in exceptional cases, to do justice between the parties. Assuming that such powers can be exercised by the Court of Small Causes in exceptional cases, such a case has not been made out by the landlords in this case. The case made out is purely a case for review solely on the ground that they have come in possession of certain additional evidence after the decision of the case. This is no ground for exercise of powers under S. 151 of the Code. Reference may be made to a decision of the Madras High Court reported in the case of Kutinha v. Nathal Pinto Bai, AIR 1941 Mad 272, where the court held that unless a statute provides a remedy by way of review, the court cannot review its own judgment except in very exceptional circumstances, such as, for example, where it passed an order inadvertently or on account of some false representation by the officers of the Court. Such is not the case here. All that is contended by the landlords in this case is that they have discovered further evidence on the basis of which they want to prove the standard rent on the actual expenses for construction of the building by producing additional evidence. Since the application for review is not maintainable the order of the appellate bench cannot be sustained. The Civil Revision Application is allowed and the impugned order dt. July 7, 1982, remanding the matter back to the trial court is quashed and set aside. The landlord's application for review by permitting them to lead additional evidence stands rejected. The appellate bench shall proceed to hear and dispose of the revision application as far as the decision in the standard rent application is concerned, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

16. Rule made absolute accordingly.

Revision allowed.

National Hotel And Others v. Mrs. Rukaiyabai And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Tenants' (petitioners') arguments (as presented by Mr. Mirchandani)

Landlords' (respondents') arguments (as presented by Mr. Dighe)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Disposition

National Hotel And Others v. Mrs. Rukaiyabai And Others

Comments