: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2007 Blanch Joseph Alvares & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Aspi Framroze Golwalla & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar with Mr. Rohit Pawaskar for the Applicants. Mr. P.S. Dani for Respondent No.6. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicants have challenged the order dated 24th August, 2000, passed by the trial Court and order dated 22nd September, 2006, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in favour of the respondents. According to the applicants, the respondents have filed a R.A.E. & R. Suit No.695/2190 of 1979 for eviction against them. Evidence was to be led by the plaintiffs. However, it was due to the non-availability of : 2 : their Advocate, the trial Court dismissed the Suit for want of prosecution. The respondents then took out the Miscellaneous Notice No.918 of 1997 for restoration of the Suit. That notice was discharged on 4th August, 1999. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application for review of the judgment dated 4th August, 1999, passed by the trial Court. The applicants opposed that Review Application by contending that this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to review its own order. The Small Causes Court, Mumbai, has allowed the Review Application. The Suit was restored to file as a consequence by the order dated 29th August, 2000. Being aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the applicants approached the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by preferring Appeal No.741 of 2000. The Appellate Bench by its order dated 22nd September, 2006 held that the Appeal was not maintainable. 4. Mr. Pawaskar, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, submits that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction under the Bombay Rents, : 3 : Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, (for short “the Act”), to review its own order. He submits that the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of National Hotel (Firm), Bombay & Ors. vs. Rukaiyabai & Ors., reported in 1985 Mh.L.J. 353, specifically provides that a review is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. He further submits that in any event the Appeal filed by the applicants is maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Mr. Dani, appearing for respondent No.6, points out the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.T. Gandhi vs. Smt. Manjulaben Maganlal Shah, reported in 1988 Mah.R.C.J. 540. The Division Bench has considered the procedure to be adopted under the Bombay Rent Control Rules while deciding suits under the Act. The Division Bench has held that the judgment in the case of M/s. National Hotels is applicable only to proceedings covered by Rules 5 and 7 and not to those to which Rule 8 applies. The Court has : 4 : specifically observed and held in para 7 as follows: “7. Therefore the only question, which requires further probe, is to find out whether by rule 8 of the Rules either specifically or by necessary implication power of review has been conferred upon the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. It cannot be disputed that the Court of first instance constituted under the Code of Civil Procedure has power of review under Section 114 and under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. If under rule 8 the Court of Small Causes, Bombay has to follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, then obviously it will have the power of review. Exclusion of the said power by the Rules framed by the High Court under section 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is not relevant for deciding the question since Rule 8 makes no reference to the said Act or rules framed thereunder. Rule 8 in terms contemplates that the procedure to be followed should be the procedure as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Code of Civil Procedure the Court has power of review, and said power is not taken away by rule 8 or rule 9 of the Rules. Therefore, it will have to be held that while dealing with suits or proceedings covered by rule 8 of the Rules the Court of Small Causes, Bombay will have the power of review. It is needless to say that the said power of review is limited and circumscribed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure viz. : 5 : Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code as well as various judicial pronouncements.” 6. Thus, in my opinion, the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicants that the review is not maintainable must be rejected. However, the Appellate Court has erroneously held that the Appeal is not maintainable. In view of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an Appeal would be maintainable against an order reviewing an earlier order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application is allowed. 8. The Appeal is remanded for a fresh hearing on merits. 9. The Appeal will be disposed of within a period of three months from today.