Revisional power under Rent Control law applies only to orders affecting substantive rights, not mere procedural irregularities.

The revisional power under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is supervisory and broader than section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it is not an appellate rehearing. It permits interference only where the impugned order is not according to law in the substantive sense and causes a miscarriage of justice; mere procedural irregularity is insufficient. A revision is maintainable only against non-appealable orders that directly affect substantive rights or liabilities under the Rent Act or other substantive law. Purely procedural CPC orders, such as those on amendment, discovery, adjournment, costs, or time, are generally not revisable unless they affect the foundation of the case.

---

---

Issues: (i) What is the scope and ambit of the power of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999? (ii) Whether a revision application under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is maintainable against a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act?

Issue (i): What is the scope and ambit of the power of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?

Analysis: The revisional power is supervisory and is broader than the narrow jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but it is not equivalent to an appellate rehearing. The expression "according to law" governs the overall order and permits interference where there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. Mere non-compliance with procedural law does not, by itself, justify revision. The revisional court must first satisfy itself that the order is revisable and then examine whether the impugned order conforms to law in the sense required by the Rent Act and other substantive law.

Conclusion: The power of revision is wide, but it is confined to testing whether the impugned order is according to law in the substantive sense and does not extend to correcting mere procedural irregularities.

Issue (ii): Whether a revision application under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is maintainable against a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act?

Analysis: A revisable order need not be confined to decrees or orders directly relating to possession or rent, but it must directly affect substantive rights or liabilities under the Rent Act or some other substantive law. Purely procedural orders, including those dealing only with amendment, discovery, particulars, commission, adjournment, costs, extension of time, or similar procedural matters, are not revisable unless they affect the very existence of the suit or the foundation of a party's case in a substantive sense. Orders refusing leave to amend pleadings where substantive rights are asserted, refusing restoration, or refusing to extend time for filing a written statement may be revisable; orders merely granting procedural relief ordinarily are not.

Conclusion: A revision under section 34(4) is not maintainable against a purely procedural order under the Code of Civil Procedure unless the order affects substantive rights or liabilities under the Rent Act or another substantive law.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by adopting a narrower but substantive-rights-based test for revisability, and the matters were sent back for decision of the writ petitions in light of those answers.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, revision lies only against non-appealable orders that directly affect substantive rights or liabilities under the Rent Act or other substantive law, and not against mere procedural orders under the Code of Civil Procedure.

---