1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5430 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7195 OF 2007 Ms.Sangeeta L. Shah .. Petitioner Versus Suryakant H. Desai .. Respondent Mr.P.S.Dani for petitioner Mr.Uttam G. Tahiliani for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th January 2008 P.C. . It is not disputed before me that the 2 order of the trial court dated 8th February 2007 directs the applicant to pay Rs.3,19,602/- for the period up to June 2005 and, thereafter at Rs.1961 per month from July 2005 onwards as also interest at 15% with costs of the suit. The order passed by the trial court is on the application Exh.6 in R.A.E.& R.Suit No.273/680/05 and Exh.6 in R.A.E.Application No.8/SR/05. The applications are by against defendants who are petitioners before me and they are opposed by the respondenet landlord. 2. The application is for permission to deposit arrears of rent, permitted increases and interest without prejudice and fixation of interim rent, whereas the second application claims the relief of Interim rent. 3. The trial court has passed a common order on these applications on 8th February 2007 which was impugned in two separate revision 3 applications by the petitioners before me. These revision applications have been dismissed summarily as not maintainable. That order has been passed on 11th April 2007. It is this order of the Revisional Court, which has been impugned before me. 4. After the impugned order is perused by me, it is clear that the same is deciding both applications. The same decides both applications by the petitioners. However, directions therein are to the effect that the petitioners have been permitted to deposit arrears of rent, permitted increase and interest thereon at 15% for the period upto June 2005 but they are directed to deposit arrears of rent from July 2005 to February 2007. There are several other issues which would arise with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial court to pass orders and direct payment of the sums aforesaid. 4 5. Without entering into any larger controversy with regard to maintainability of the revision applications, in the peculiar facts of this case, considering that the composite order has been passed and request of interim standard rent being fixed, is rejected, coupled with a direction to pay the arrears at the rate stipulated in the judgement of the trial court, the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes should have entertained the revision applications on merits and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides. The appellate bench has, without going into the controversy between parties and the nature of the order passed has straight away held that the revisions were not maintainable. 6. Mr.Dani contends that the trial court also was exercising jurisdiction under Order 15A of C.P.C. That aspect, however, has not been examined in the order of Revisional Court. In 5 such circumstances, revisional court would have been well advised to decide the revision application on merits. 7. In the light of this order under challenge in both petitions is quashed and set aside and the Revision Application Nos. 13 and 14 of 2007 are restored to the file of the appellate bench of Court of Small Causes for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. Petitions disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)