( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2009 Sau. Lilawati w/o. Guraldas Bajaj .. Applicant Versus Shri Jalindar s/o. Chandrabhan Amale .. Respondent Shri R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K. Gawali, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 05.10.2009 P.C. :- 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed by the original landlord being aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge-2, Ahmednagar, in Civil Revision Application No. 2 of 2009 decided on 30.06.2009, whereby he held that the standard rent of the suit premises occupied by respondent No. 1 was not Rs.5000/- as determined by 4th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Civil Misc. Application No. 156 of 2006, decided on 01.04.2009, but it is Rs.2500/- per month in January, 2005 and shall be Rs. 2600/- per month from January, 2006 onwards. ( 2 ) 2. The basic question that arises for consideration is whether second revision against decision of District Judge-2, Ahmednagar, in Civil Revision Application No. 2 of 2009 is tenable. Adv. Shri Mantri for the applicant stated that in the first place this is not revision petition filed by the revision applicant before the District Court, but it is revision petition filed in High Court by respondent before the District Court. He also argued that the revision is tenable under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1988, before the District Court. This revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He relied upon case of Sadhana Lodh V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and anr, AIR 2003 S.C.1561. In para six of the said case, following observations are made :- “6. The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149(2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act (see National ( 3 ) Insurance Co. Ltd, Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others 2002(7) SCC 456).This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.” . Their Lordships observed that the insurer had limited right to file appeal on grounds provided under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and by filing writ petition, he cannot be permitted to enlarge scope and in the circumstances remedy of the insurer is revision under Section 115 where appeal is not provided against order and judgment of the District Court. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent has cited case of Aundal Ammal V/s. Sadasivan Pillai, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 183, wherein Their Lordships have quoted Section 18 and 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. By ( 4 ) Section 18 (5) decision of the appellate authority, subject to such decision of the appellate authority the order of Rent Control Court has been made final and is not to be called upon in question in any Court of law except as provided in Section 20. Section 20 deals with revisional powers of the District Court in certain matters and High Court in remaining matters. As per Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, sub-sections (1) to (3) deal with appeal. No appeal is provided as against fixation of standard rent. Sub-section (3) lays down that no further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) provides revision against those orders or decrees against which no appeal was filed and as such revision is maintainable before the District Court. So, the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are pari materia in Section 18 & 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Supreme Court in para 15 of the case raised question whether respondent-landlord can have second revision to High Court and in para 22 we find detailed discussions after referring to the case of Vishesh Kumar V/s. Shanti Prasad, AIR 1980 SC 892, the Supreme Court ultimately held that the High Court ( 5 ) has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision given revision by the District Court. 4. Another case cited is Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and ors, V/s. Pune Municipal Corporation and anr, (1995) 3 S.C.C. 33. In para 3 after referring to the case of Aundal Ammal (Supra), it is held that no second revision under Section 115 (1) would lie against revisional order of the subordinate Court. 5. In view of this, in my opinion, this revision is not tenable. The appellant has liberty to have recourse to any other remedy available under law. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cra124.09