V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) CIVIL Suit No. 3950/1950 filed in the Small Causes Court under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act was decreed ex parte and an application to set aside the ex parte decree was rejected by the Small Causes Court. But an appeal was allowed by the Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad and the ex parte decree was set aside. In revision it is contended that no appeal lay to the appellate Court and this is the only question involved in this revision application. The learned counsel for the opponent contends that although an appeal does not lie under the ordinary provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. an appeal would lie in this case as the suit was under a special enactment namely under sec. 28 of the Rent Act. ( 2 ) UNDER sec. 7 of the Civil Procedure Code among other things the provisions of sec. 104 C. P. Code are not applicable to Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Order 43 C. P. Code which provides for orders in which an appeal shall lie under the provisions of sec. 104 C. P. Code therefore does not apply to Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. ( 3 ) IN regard to appeals there is a special provision in sec. 24 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which reads as follows:- where an order specified in clause (ff) or clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is made by a Court of Small Causes an appeal therefrom shall lie to the District Court on any ground on which an appeal from such order would lie under that section. Clause (ff) of sec. 104 C. P. Code refers to orders under sec 35a C. P. Code. Clause (h) of sec. 104 C. P. Code refers to an order under any of the provisions of the C. P. Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree. Apart from sec. 24 there is no other provision in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act relating to appeals. Apart from sec. 24 there is no other provision in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act relating to appeals. Therefore if it was merely an order of the Small Causes Court refusing to set aside an ex parte decree no appeal would lie. ( 4 ) BUT the contention of the learned counsel for the opponent is that in view of the provisions of the Rent Act the position is different. Section 28 of the Rent Act enumerates the Courts which have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of that part of the Rent Act apply and to decide an application made under the Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions. It is further provided that subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) no other Court shall have juris- diction to entertain any such suit proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question. Sub-sec. (2) deals with the powers of the District Court relating to withdrawal of suits proceeding or application and transferring the same for trial or disposal to the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division having ordinary jurisdiction in such area. Under sec. 28 of the Rent Act the Court having jurisdiction is the Court of the Small Causes Court established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 ( 5 ) APART from the proviso sec. 29 of the Rent Act so far as mate- rial reads as follows:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law an appeal shall lie- (A) In Greater Bombay from a decree or order made by the Court of small Causes Bombay exercising Jurisdiction under sec. 28 to a bench of two judges of the said Court which shall not include the Judge who made such decree or order; (B) elsewhere from a decree or order made by a Judge of the Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 or by the Court of the Civil Judge deemed to be the Court of Small Causes under clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 28 or by a Civil Judge exercising such jurisdiction to the District Court. (2) of sec. 28 or by a Civil Judge exercising such jurisdiction to the District Court. (2) No further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under sub-sec. (1 ). d. ( 6 ) ). UNDER sec. 28 of the Rent Act the Court has jurisdiction to try any suit proceeding or application between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession etc. and to decide any application made under the Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or under any of its provisions. ( 7 ) NO doubt an order passed by the Small Causes Court refusing to set aside an ex parte decree is an order passed by the Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. But the question is whether such an order is passed by that Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under sec. 28 of the Rent Act. After the suit has been decided and the decree has been passed if the Small Causes Court hears an application to set aside the ex parte decree it does not exercise juris- diction under sec. 28 of the Rent Act and therefore no appeal lies against that order under the provisions of sec. 29 of the Rent Act. ( 8 ) THE provisions of Order 9 C. P. Code apply to Small Causes Courts. Those provisions are not excluded by sec. 7 C. P. Code. Order 9 C. P. Code is in two parts one relating to appearance of parties and consequence of non-appearance and the other relating to setting aside ex-parte decrees. Rules 13 and 14 or Order 9 C. P. Code deal with setting aside ex-parte decrees. The power to act under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code and Order 9 Rule 14 C. P. Code is therefore given to Small Causes Courts established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. ( 9 ) IT is provided in sec. 31 of the Rent Act as follows:-THE Courts specified in secs. 28 and 29 shall allow the prescribed procedure in trying and hearing suits proceedings applications and appeals and in executing orders made by them. Section 31 of the Rent Act does not say that the Courts specified in secs. ( 9 ) IT is provided in sec. 31 of the Rent Act as follows:-THE Courts specified in secs. 28 and 29 shall allow the prescribed procedure in trying and hearing suits proceedings applications and appeals and in executing orders made by them. Section 31 of the Rent Act does not say that the Courts specified in secs. 28 and 29 of the Rent Act have all the powers of the Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Section 31 of the Rent Act only deals with the procedure of trying and hearing suits proceedings applications and appeals and in executing orders made by them. The word applications has reference to applications already described in sec. 28 of the Rent Act. However it is not neces- sary to further pursue this point and decide whether a Small Causes Court exercising jurisdiction under sec. 28 of the Rent Act can pass an order under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code because we are only concerned with the question whether appeal lies. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the opponent wants to rely on two judg- ments one of the Supreme Court and the other of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Courts judgment is reported in Importers v. Phiroz 55 Bom. L. R. 271. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with the question of setting aside an ex-parte decree the question whether a suit against a tenant and also a sub-tenant was a suit against a land- lord and a tenant and the question whether a suit in which compensation for use and occupation was claimed was or was not a suit for the reco- very of rent within the meaning of sec. 28 of the Rent Act. Their Lord- ships held that the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession empowered the Court not only to pass a decree for possession but also to give direc- tions for payment of mesne profits until delivery of possession. Their Lordships were dealing with a suit in which one of the reliefs claimed obviously fell within the scope of sec. 28 of the Rent Act and their Lordships held that the other relief prayed was incidental to the main relief. Their Lordships also held that apart from sec. Their Lordships were dealing with a suit in which one of the reliefs claimed obviously fell within the scope of sec. 28 of the Rent Act and their Lordships held that the other relief prayed was incidental to the main relief. Their Lordships also held that apart from sec. 28 of the Act the joinder of defendant No. 2 who was a proper party could not alter the character of the suit and did not make the suit any the less a suit bet- ween the landlord and the tenant or took it out of sec. 28 of the Rent Act. But in the instant case we are not dealing with any such questions and the question involved in the present proceedings relates to setting aside an ex-parte decree after the decree is passed. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the opponent also relies on Mehersingh Sethi v. Khurshed Satarawalla 56 Bom. L. R. 540. In that case it was decided by the Bombay High Court that sec. 28 confers jurisdiction upon the Special Courts not only to decide questions referred to in the section but also all matters which are incidental or ancillary to the determination of those questions e. g. whether the plaintiff is entitled to a charge on property situated outside jurisdiction for arrears of rent. But we are not concerned with that question at all because in the instant case the question is whether after the decree is passed and after all the questions and all the ancillary questions and incidental questions are decided the Court continues to exercise jurisdiction under sec. 28 of the Rent Act. These two judgments have no bearing on the question to be decided in the present revision application. ( 12 ) EVEN if a Small Causes Court established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has powers to pass an order under Order 9 R. 13 C. P. Code it does not exercise jurisdiction under sec. 28 of the Rent Act while it refuses to set aside the ex-parte decree and therefore no appeal lies under sec. 29 of the Rent Act. The lower appellate Court was therefore wrong in deciding the appeal before it which it was not competent to decide as no appeal lay to it. 28 of the Rent Act while it refuses to set aside the ex-parte decree and therefore no appeal lies under sec. 29 of the Rent Act. The lower appellate Court was therefore wrong in deciding the appeal before it which it was not competent to decide as no appeal lay to it. ( 13 ) THE revision application is therefore allowed and the order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad is set aside. No order as to costs. Application allowed. .