1 LPA152.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.152 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.647 OF 2011 WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.154 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.660 OF 2011 KJ Mrs.Katie Darayus Bhathena & Anr. )....Appellants Vs. Ronald James H. Machado & Ors. )....Respondents ---- Mr.Raj Patel i/by Kavita Shah for the appellants. None for the respondents. ---- CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 12.7.2011 PC 1 Leave to amend cause title is granted. These Letters Patent Appeals are filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.647 of 2011. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment, dismissed the 2 LPA152.11.sxw writ petition filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Revision Application Nos.80/2009 & 81/2009. The proceedings arise out of Rent Court orders. The petitioners are landlords of the suit premises. They have filed suit against the original tenants for getting decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The suit is pending. Landlords gave an application asking the tenants to deposit the rent as per the demand made. Tenants also gave another application asking the Court to allow them to deposit rent at a particular rate. Application of the tenants was rejected by the trial Court and the application of the landlord was allowed, against which tenants filed two Revisions. The Revisional Court allowed both the Revision applications against which the petitioners have filed writ petition before the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge has given cogent reasons and dismissed the writ petition, against which, the original petitioners have filed these Letters Patent Appeals. 2 In our view, the proceedings arising out of Rent Act and the 3 LPA152.11.sxw order of the Revisional Court if challenged before the single Judge, then, can be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. LPA against such order of the single Judge is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Adwani Oerlicon Ltd., Vs. Machindra Govind Mahasane reported in 2011(2) Mah.L.J, wherein the Full Bench has held that the nomenclature in the petition is not a guiding factor to find out as to which power the single Judge has exercised. In the instant case, proceedings before the single Judge were in the nature of Article-227 of the Constitution of India as the judgment of the revisional Court in Rent Act matter was under challenge. The proceedings are of interlocutory nature. Considering the same, in our view, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under Article-226 as the writ petition was against the revisional order of the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court. Learned single Judge in the order has also observed that the revisional Court has, at the interlocutory stage, believed the case of the respondents that they were paying the rent of Rs. 64.05 per month to the landlords. Learned single Judge 4 LPA152.11.sxw therefore, did not find any justification to interfere with the said order of the revisional Court. In our view, learned single Judge has exercised his supervisory jurisdiction. Hence, Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the revision before the Small Causes Court is not competent as it was against the interlocutory order. Considering the scheme of 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, it cannot be said that revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable. In any case, we are not examining this aspect in detail. Hence, both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (P.B.MAJMUDAR,J)