JIVANLAL MANILAL PARIKH v. KASTURCHAND RAICHAND RUPERA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Jul 1998
- Bench
- D C SRIVASTAVA
Outcome
Dismissed
(cid:9)The revision is dismissed as not maintainable
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India
- Bombay Rent Act, 1947 s. 29(2)
- Bombay Rent Act s. 29(2)
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.C.SRIVASTAVA Date of decision: 23/07/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.(cid:9)This is landlord's revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
2.(cid:9)Brief facts are that an application for fixation of standard rent was moved in the trial Court which fixed Rs.20/- p.m. as standard rent. The revision was preferred against this order of the trial Court and the revisional court allowed the revision and enhanced the standard rent to Rs.30/- p.m. Feeling aggrieved the landlord has preferred this revision.
3.(cid:9)I have heard Shri D.M.Thakkar for the revisionist.
Operative part
4.(cid:9)This revision is not maintainable under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Aforesaid section will be applicable only against the order which has been passed by the appellate Court and against which no further appeal is provided. It is not an order passed by the appellate Court, but by the revisional court and no second revision under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is permissible and maintainable. On the other hand Section 29(3) of the Act provides that revision against the order fixing standard rent can be moved in the District Court and not in the High Court. The revision is thus prima facie not maintainable. Hence the merits of the revision cannot be entertained into. (cid:9)The revision is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. (cid:9) (cid:9)sd/- * * * * * *sas* (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (cid:9)The revision is dismissed as not maintainable
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Bombay Rent Act, 1947 — s. 29(2); Bombay Rent Act — s. 29(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 23 Jul 1998. The bench was D C SRIVASTAVA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.