Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Narishala Society, filed a second appeal against the judgment and order of the Small Causes Court, Pune, in Civil Appeal No.833 of 2007. The background of the case involves respondent No.1, Parmanand Bhimandas Talreja, who had filed R.C.Suit No.50 of 2001 against respondent No.2 before the Small Causes Court, which was decreed. The appeal by respondent No.2 was dismissed, and a writ petition (Writ Petition No.6330 of 2006) was also dismissed. Consequently, execution proceedings were initiated by the decree holder (respondent No.1) against respondent No.2. During these execution proceedings, the appellant filed an obstructionist notice under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Trial Court decided this application against the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.833 of 2007, which was dismissed by the lower appellate court. Hence, the present second appeal. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Kanetkar, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the second appeal. He argued that the lower appellate court had passed an order under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act). He pointed out that sub-section (2) of Section 29 stipulates that no further appeal lies against any decision in an appeal under sub-section (1). According to him, the obstructionist notice was decided as a suit under Section 28 of the Rent Act by the Small Causes Court, and the appeal against that order was preferred under Section 29 of the Rent Act before the District Court. Therefore, the second appeal is not maintainable. The court, after hearing the submissions, upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the second appeal as not maintainable, relying on the bar under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Maintainability - Section 29(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The court held that no further appeal lies against a decision in an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Rent Act. The second appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second appeal lies against an order passed in appeal under Section 29(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal not maintainable
- Section 29(2) Bombay Rent Act bars further appeal
- Order 21 Rule 99 CPC
- Section 28 Bombay Rent Act
