1 wp168.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.S. Nirkhee with Mr. D.K. Dagadkhair, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2011 1. Short question involved in this Petition is, whether Revision no. 4 of 2010 as filed by petitioner-tenant against the order passed below Exhibit-16 and 19 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 292 of 2007, is maintainable or not. By the said order dated 10th March, 2010, the application moved by the present petitioner for dismissal of suit was rejected. 2. According to Advocate Mr. Nirkhee, the learned District Judge has erred in treating order as interlocutory in nature or of procedural type. He argues that had revision been allowed, the suit itself could have been 2 wp168.11 dismissed. 3. Advocate Mr. Brahme for respondent on the other hand contends that the Revision is rightly held to be not maintainable in the light of the judgment of this Court reported at "1983 Mh.L.J. 9" (Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir V/s Rambhujarat Kshampati). 4. In the alternate and without prejudice, he also argues that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable as relief of dismissal of suit is being claimed and therefore, the petitioner-tenant has to file Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. It is not in dispute that the suit before trial Court is under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the said Act provides for remedy of appeal as also Revision under Section 34 thereof. It is apparent that there can be no second Revision before this Court if the first Revision under section 34(4) is held maintainable. 6. Advocate Mr. Brahme has produced before this Court the Judgment reported at "1982 Mh.L.J. 313" (Madanlal Mulchand Soni V/s Mainkichand Dhanraj Gugle) to urge that the juxtaposition of words "decree" or "order" together in provisions of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is looked into there and it has been 3 wp168.11 held that the Revision against interlocutory order is therefore not maintainable. 7. The said Judgment also shows that the law as mentioned herein above in case of "Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir V/s Rambhujarat Kshampati" is also shown to this Court at that time. 8. The petitioner-tenant had sought dismissal of suit alleging non-compliance of the order of trial Court. Whether, his application is maintainable or not is the question to be gone into on merits but if that application is allowed, it is apparent that suit is required to be dismissed. Thus, the order passed rejecting that application can not be viewed as interlocutory order. The Revision against the said order therefore can not be said to be not maintainable. I therefore find that the judgment relied upon by Advocate Mr. Brahme does not assist the cause of respondent-landlord in this connection. 9. The impugned order dated 23.08.2010 passed below Exhibit-13 in Civil Revision Application no. 4 of 2010 by the District Judge (Additional A.D.J.), Ahmednagar is quashed and set aside. Proceedings in Revision Application is restored back to the file of District Judge (Additional A.D.J.), Ahmednagar. 10. Parties are directed to appear before that Court on 4 wp168.11 20th April, 2011 and that Court shall attempt to decide the Revision itself on merits as early as possible and in any case by 30th June, 2011. 11. With these directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp168.11