Case Note & Summary
The present batch of Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arises from a common judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Court in a series of First Appeals. The factual matrix involves the appellants, who were original petitioners, filing applications for fixation of standard rent under Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) against the respondent, Jetpur Swaminarayan Trust, a public trust. The trial court fixed the standard rent, and the landlord (respondent) appealed. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals without considering the merits, leading to the present second appeals. The High Court, after hearing arguments, identified the substantial question of law as whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeals without merits. The Court held that the order fixing standard rent under Section 11(3) is not a final order but an interlocutory one, and an appeal lies under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. However, the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits. Since the appellate court failed to do so, the High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matters to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits, directing the appellate court to decide the appeals within six months. The judgment emphasizes that the appellate court should not dismiss appeals without considering the evidence and legal submissions.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court entertained second appeals against the appellate order dismissing first appeals without merits, holding that the appellate court's failure to decide the appeals on merits raises a substantial question of law. (Paras 1-2) B) Rent Control - Standard Rent Fixation - Finality of Order - Section 11(3) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The order fixing standard rent under Section 11(3) is not a final order but an interlocutory order, as it does not finally determine the rights of the parties; it is subject to revision under Section 11(3) itself. (Paras 3-4) C) Rent Control - Appeal - Maintainability - Section 29 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - An appeal lies against an order fixing standard rent under Section 11(3) as it is a 'decree' under Section 29 read with Section 2(2) CPC, but the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits. (Paras 5-6) D) Civil Procedure - Remand - Appellate Court's Failure to Decide on Merits - The High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matters to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits, as the appellate court had dismissed the appeals without considering the evidence and submissions. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits of the case, and whether the order fixing standard rent under Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act is a final order or an interlocutory order.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeals, set aside the common judgment and order of the First Appellate Court, and remanded the matters to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits, directing the appellate court to decide the appeals within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Standard rent fixation under Section 11(3) of Bombay Rent Act is not a final order
- appealable under Section 29 of the Act
- Appellate court must decide appeals on merits
- Second appeal lies under Section 100 CPC if substantial question of law arises
- Remand for fresh consideration is appropriate when lower courts fail to exercise jurisdiction.
