1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.5220 OF 2007 NO.5220 OF 2007 NO.5220 OF 2007 Smt Smt Smt Kusum J.Mehta Kusum J.Mehta Kusum J.Mehta ...... Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner vs vs vs Pulin Pulin Pulin Lalitmohan Kinariwala.. Lalitmohan Kinariwala.. Lalitmohan Kinariwala.. Respondent Respondent Respondent Mr.P.S.Dani Mr.P.S.Dani Mr.P.S.Dani for Petitioner for Petitioner for Petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : S.A.BOBDE, J S.A.BOBDE, J S.A.BOBDE, J DATED DATED DATED : 3rd August, 2007 : 3rd August, 2007 : 3rd August, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the The petitioner has challenged the order of the The petitioner has challenged the order of the Division Division Division Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai refusing refusing refusing to entertain his revision aplication to entertain his revision aplication to entertain his revision aplication against against against the order of the trial Court. the order of the trial Court. the order of the trial Court. 2.2.2. The petitioner had applied for permission to The petitioner had applied for permission to The petitioner had applied for permission to deposit deposit deposit the standard rent and permitted increases the standard rent and permitted increases the standard rent and permitted increases under under under section 15 (3) of the Maharashtra Rent section 15 (3) of the Maharashtra Rent section 15 (3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Control Control Act, Act, Act, 1999 as a defendant in the suit. This 1999 as a defendant in the suit. This 1999 as a defendant in the suit. This prayer prayer prayer of the plaintiff was granted and the trial of the plaintiff was granted and the trial of the plaintiff was granted and the trial Court Court Court permitted permitted permitted him to deposit the amount. Against him to deposit the amount. Against him to deposit the amount. Against that that that order, the petitioner preferred a revision order, the petitioner preferred a revision order, the petitioner preferred a revision application application application stating that the order accepting the stating that the order accepting the stating that the order accepting the deposit deposit deposit is erroneous because, the standard rent is erroneous because, the standard rent is erroneous because, the standard rent contemplated contemplated contemplated therein was excessive. therein was excessive. therein was excessive. 3.3.3. It seems difficult to comprehend any reason as It seems difficult to comprehend any reason as It seems difficult to comprehend any reason as toto to why why why the petitioner at all should be heard to say the petitioner at all should be heard to say the petitioner at all should be heard to say whether whether whether in the revision application or any other in the revision application or any other in the revision application or any other proceeding proceeding proceeding that the amount he has deposited is that the amount he has deposited is that the amount he has deposited is 2 excessive excessive excessive and therefore the order of accepting his and therefore the order of accepting his and therefore the order of accepting his deposit deposit deposit is illegal and is therefore liable to be is illegal and is therefore liable to be is illegal and is therefore liable to be revised. revised. revised. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for The petitioner is at liberty to apply for The petitioner is at liberty to apply for paying paying paying the rent revised. the rent revised. the rent revised. 4.4.4. Though it was contended that the revision Though it was contended that the revision Though it was contended that the revision application application application ought to have been entertained because ought to have been entertained because ought to have been entertained because section section section 34 (4) makes no distinction between 34 (4) makes no distinction between 34 (4) makes no distinction between procedural procedural procedural orders and substantive orders and orders and substantive orders and orders and substantive orders and therefore therefore therefore a party is entitled to have any order a party is entitled to have any order a party is entitled to have any order revised. revised. revised. The circumstances of the case do not The circumstances of the case do not The circumstances of the case do not warrant warrant warrant any interference by this Court in exercise any interference by this Court in exercise any interference by this Court in exercise of of of its extra ordinary jurisdictiion. Petition is its extra ordinary jurisdictiion. Petition is its extra ordinary jurisdictiion. Petition is therefore therefore therefore dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. (S.A.Bobde, (S.A.Bobde, (S.A.Bobde, J) J) J) 3