1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.690 OF 1990 PETITION NO.690 OF 1990 PETITION NO.690 OF 1990 Saeeda Badruddin ... Petitioner Vs. Alimuddin B. Bhati, since ... Respondents deceased Khatija wd/o Alimuddin Bhati & Ors. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.G. Toraskar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1(A), 1(E), 1(F), 1(H) and 1(I). CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : 8TH JULY, 2008 : 8TH JULY, 2008 : 8TH JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. The principal question that needs to be addressed in this petition is whether revision petition against the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is maintainable. 2. The lower Court has rejected the Revision Application holding that such revision is not maintainable within the meaning of Section 29(3) of the Act. That view is consistent with the view taken by this Court as can be descerned from the dictum in the case of Dhausubi Mohammed Pasha Dhausubi Mohammed Pasha Dhausubi Mohammed Pasha 2 Saheb Saheb Saheb Vs. Smt. Shah Jahan Mustaque Dhole, Vs. Smt. Shah Jahan Mustaque Dhole, Vs. Smt. Shah Jahan Mustaque Dhole, reported reported reported in 1980 Bombay C.R.759 in 1980 Bombay C.R.759 in 1980 Bombay C.R.759. No other authority has been brought to my notice, taking a contrary view. As the above said decision has held the field for such a long time and being a binding precedent, I would follow the same view. In this view of the matter, no other question needs to be addressed in this petition. The petition will have to be dismissed while upholding the opinion recorded by the revisional authority that the revision was not maintainable. 3. Hence, Rule discharged. The Petition is disposed of on the above terms. 4. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit and preferably finally decide it expeditiously before the end of December, 2008, keeping in mind that the suit pertains to the year 1979. 5. Interim relief vacated forthwith. Copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Court within two weeks from today. 3 ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)