IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9048 OF 2003 Shri Natwar Hagji Parekh ...Petitioner Versus M/s.Gunvantray & Company ...Respondents ...... Ms Vasanti S.Dighe for Petitioner. Mr.S.S.Karekar i/b Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondents. ...... CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED: MAY 2, 2008. DATED: MAY 2, 2008. DATED: MAY 2, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By filing this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Revision Application No.50/2002 by which the Revision Application filed by the present Petitioner is dismissed and the order passed by the Trial Court fixing the standard rate at Rs.430/- (Rupees Four Hundred Thirty) per month is confirmed. : 2 : 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the person who had instituted application, was not authorised to file such application and therefore, the Court should not have fixed the standard rent at the instance of the original applicant who had filed the application. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Trial Court had also found that the application was not bonafide, yet, the Trial Court has fixed the standard rent. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Revisional Court has given a finding to the effect that the applicant was entitled to move such an application and that this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may not interfere with the impugned order of the Revisional Court which was the Revision under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the : 3 : parties and I have gone through the Judgment and Order of the Courts below. It is required to be noted that at the time of deciding interim rent, the Trial Court had fixed Rs.430/- (Rupees Four Hundred Thirty) as standard rent and ultimately the application was finally disposed of by fixing the said rent as the standard rent. Against the order of the Trial Court fixing standard rent, Revision was preferred by the Petitioner and the Revisional Court, after giving cogent reasons, has dismissed the Revision Application of the Petitioner. Considering the reasonings given by the Appellate Bench, in my view, this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the said order in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. 5. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Revisional Court. It cannot be said that the Revisional Court has committed any error which is required to be corrected by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this Petition is without any substance. The same is rejected. Notice discharged. No order as to costs. : 4 : 6. However, it is clarified that if any Suit for eviction filed by the Petitioner is pending, and if any issue is already framed by the Trial Court as to whether the Respondent Company is a tenant of the suit premises or not, it is for the concerned Court to decide the said issue by allowing the parties to lead evidence on that aspect. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on this aspect and as stated above, in case, any issue is already framed, the Trial Court may permit the parties to lead evidence without being influenced by the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court in the present proceedings. However, this order should not mean that if there is no issue, the applicant would be permitted to raise this point in the pending Suit. P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.