JUDGMENT : D.P. DESAI, J. 1. This application raises a question of interpretation of Section 10 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 thereafter referred to as 'the Act) which question, as per the statement made at the bar, does not appear to have come up for determination before this Court at any earlier stage. Only few facts are necessary for the purpose and they are admitted. The suit premises were let to the petitioner- tenant by the opposite party-landlord in the year 1955. They are situated on Rakhial road of Ahmedabad and on the date of letting this locality of Rakhial did not form part of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The said area, however, was brought within the Corporation limits with effect from August 13, 1955. It is also admitted that prior to that date, no tax was levied on the suit premises by any local authority. The first impact of bringing this area within the limits of the Municipal Corporation was that the liability of the landlord to pay municipal taxes came into existence for the first time. Admittedly there was no agreement between the parties to pay municipal taxes in the sense that the tenant had not agreed to pay municipal taxes in addition to the rent whenever they became leviable. The Municipal Corporation levied tax on the suit premises from the date they were brought within Corporation limits, as a result of which the landlord filed a suit claiming the entire amount of taxes Ivied, from the tenant of the period beginning from 1-4-1959 to 31-3-1966. Admittedly the landlord had paid those taxes to the Corporation and thereafter he sued to recover the amount so paid for the aforesaid period. In a clam of the landlord was contested by the tenant. It was inter alia based on the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and is now restricted to that section only and to no other provision of law. It may be made clear that on behalf of the landlord no other provision of law under which the amount of tax which the landlord has been made to pay for the first time can be passed over to the tenant, has been pointed out to this Court. It may be made clear that on behalf of the landlord no other provision of law under which the amount of tax which the landlord has been made to pay for the first time can be passed over to the tenant, has been pointed out to this Court. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court held that the landlord was entitled to the amount of tax paid under Section 10 of the Act; and therefore, a decree for the amount claimed was passed; and came to be confirmed in appeal. Against that decree, the tenant has now come in revision to this Court under Section 29(2) of the Act. 2. Evidently that section is not so restricted in respect of the exercise of powers of revision by the High Court as Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. That section reads as under : "29(2). No further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under sub-section (1) but the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal was according to law, call for the case in which such decision was taken and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit." Therefore, the question is whether, the decision of the Courts below on the interpretation of Section 10 was in accordance with law. The question is one of the interpretation of a statutory provision alone and is a question of law. 3. In order to understand the correct scope of Section 10 vis-a-vis the dispute raised between the parties in this case, it will be necessary to set out Sections 10, 10-AA which read as under :- "10. The question is one of the interpretation of a statutory provision alone and is a question of law. 3. In order to understand the correct scope of Section 10 vis-a-vis the dispute raised between the parties in this case, it will be necessary to set out Sections 10, 10-AA which read as under :- "10. Where a land lord is required to pay to a local authority in respect of any premises any rate, cess or tax imposed or levied for the purposes of such authority he shall be entitled to make an increase in the rent of the premises by an amount not exceeding the increase paid by him by way of such rate, cess or tax over the amount paid in the period of assessment which included the date of the coming into operation of this Act or the date on which the premises were first let, whichever is later, and such increase in rent shall not be deemed to be an increase for the purposes of Section 7." "10 A. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10:- (1) If in any area specified in Schedule III to this Act a rate or tax on buildings, houses or lands or a rate or tax in the form of such rate or tax on buildings, houses or lands levied under the Bombay Municipal boroughs Act, 1925 or the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 or the Cantonments Act, 1924, or the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, as the case may be, is increased after the 31st day of March, 1949, a landlord shall not, in respect of any premises situated in any of the areas specified is the said Schedule, and let on or before the said date, be entitled to make any further increase in the rent of the said premises on account of the payment by him of such increase in the ate or tax : (2) The State Government may by notification published in the Official Gazette direct that in any area other than those specified in Schedule III a landlord shall not be entitled to make any increase in rent in respect of any premises situate in such area on account of the payment by him of an increase in the rate or tax imposed or levied by any local authority for its own purpose on buildings, houses or lands after such date as may be specified in the notification. (3) If the general tax levied under section 129 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, in respect of any premises in any city exceeds the amount paid by any landlord to any local authority on account of a rate or tax on buildings houses or lands in respect of such premises for the assessment period which included the 31st March, 1949, there shall be deemed to be an increase in such rate or tax the purpose of this section. 10AA. 10AA. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 10 and 10-A: (a) if in the city of Ahmedabad the general tax levied under section 129 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 or in any other area to which clause (1) of Sections 10-A applies a rate or tax on buildings, houses or lands or a rate or tax in the form of such rate or tax on buildings, houses or lands levied under any of the enactments referred to in the said clause (1) is increased after the 31st day of March, 1949, a landlord, in respect of any premises situated in any of the said areas, and let on or before the said date, shall be entitled, after the date of commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Second Amendment) Act, 1953 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the appointed date), to make an increase in the rent of the said premises on account of the payment by him of such increase in the rate or tax; (b) a landlord shall be entitled, after the appointed date, to make an increase in the rent of any premises situated in any of the said areas and let after the 31st day of March 1, 1949 on account of the payment by him of any increase in such rate or tax; (c) if a notification has been issued under clause (3) of section 10-A in respect of any area, a landlord shall be entitled, after the appointed date, to make an increase in the rent of any premises situated in such area on account of the payment by him of an increase in the rate of tax imposed or levied by any local authority for its own purpose on building, houses or lands, after the date specified in such notification : provided that the increase referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) above shall not exceed : (i) the difference between the amount of the increase paid by the landlord by way of rate or tax and the amount, if any, by which the Urban Immoveable Property tax is reduced after the 31st day of March, 1949: or (ii) five per cent of the standard rent, whichever is less. (2) Any increase made under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be an increase for the purposes of section 7. (2) Any increase made under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be an increase for the purposes of section 7. It may also be observed that the scheme deviated by the legislature by enacting sections 10 to 10E provider for increases in rent on account of several reasons or factors. We are admittedly concerned with Section 10 alone in the present case because according to both the sides, that is the only provision under which the present case has to he dealt with. It is well known that any increase above standard rent was made illegal as provided by Section 7 of the Act. Raving done so, the legislature in the aforesaid scheme proceeded to provide for certain increases which are known as permitted increases. Therefore, in absence of a contract to pay the municipal taxes whenever it is levied in future or discharge the existing liabilty of the landlord in respect of the municipal taxes any amount claimed by the landlord on the ground that he had been out of packet with regard to the amount of rent received by him by virtue of payment of municipal taxes, would be increase in the rent Unless that increase is permitted by any the provisions mentioned above, the same would be illegal. 4. According to the learned Judge of the appellate Bench of the Ahmedabad Small Causes Court, the word 'imposed' occurring in Section 10 indicates that the section applied also to a case where any rate, cess or tax is imposed for the first time. In making these observation, the learned Judges in effect negatived the contention which stressed the words "over the amount paid" occurring in the said section and suggestive of the fact that the increase claimed is the increase between the rate, cess or tax originally paid and the increased amount of that rate, cess or tax Stress was laid on this phrase in order to show that the section does not cover the case where no tax was originally, payable on the premises and the tax is leviable for the first time. The learned Judges were of the opinion that the effect of Section 10 of the Act "is to allow the landlord to pass on the burden of increase in rate, cess or tax imposed or levied for the purpose of a local authority to his tenant." They also observed that in a case where the tenant under the agreement was not liable for payment of municipal tax and the landlord was not required to pay any rate cess or tax to a Gram Panchayat, but was required to pay to the Municipal Corporation, the landlord can recover the whole of it from the tenant, "by making a proportionate increase in rent as provided in section 10 of the Rent Act." It is not clear with respect to the learned Judges, what the learned Judges meant when they said "proportionate increase." Section 10 does not provide for any proportionate increase. But it provides for increase in rent not exceeding the increase paid by the landlord by way of such rate, cess or tax over the amount paid in the period of assessment which included the date of coming into operation of this Act of the dote on which the premises were first let, whichever is later. The phrase "over the amount paid", in the prescribed period-whichever is applicable also emphasises the fact that there must be an existing liability of payment of rate, cess or tax during the prescribed period which liability may have been increased subsequently. The Phrase "increase paid by him by way of such rate, cess or tax" also shows that the payment made by the landlord to the local authority must be of an increased payment which presupposes the lessor payment under the original liability which has been increased. The word "increased" is very suggestive of the fact that the legislature provided for passing on the burden of an increase in the existing liability of the landlord in respect of payment of rate, cess or tax to the tenant. Where therefore, there was no liability on the landlord to pay any rate, cess or tax as in the present case, no question of increase in that liability arises and if there is no increase in the liability contemplated by Section 10, the said section is not applicable. 5. Where therefore, there was no liability on the landlord to pay any rate, cess or tax as in the present case, no question of increase in that liability arises and if there is no increase in the liability contemplated by Section 10, the said section is not applicable. 5. Now, if we turn to Section 10-A of the Act, it appears clear that having passed on the increase in the liability to pay rate, cess or tax by Section 10, the legislature in respect of certain areas specified in Schedule III of the Act, imposed a ban on the landlord from claiming further increase after 31st of March, 1949 by way of increased liability as aforesaid in respect of the premises which were let out before 31st of March, 1949. In those areas, therefore, no increase in a rate, or tax under the different enactments mentioned in sub section (1) of Section 10A after 31st of March, 1949 could be passed on by the landlord to the tenant. In the absence of Section 10A he could have been so under Section 10. Therefore, Section 10A starts with the non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 : 'Sub-section (4) of Section 10A inter alia provides for a contingency where the liability becomes increased as a result of an area governed by the Statutes mentioned in sub-section (1) coming within the Corporation Limits. In such a case also no increase after 31st of March, 1949 could be claimed. 6. Then turning to Section 10AA, we find some concession given by the legislature to the landlord in respect of increase in rate or tax or in case of a Municipal Corporation a general tax after 31st of March, 1949 both in respect of premises let before that date and after that date. The concession, however, could be availed of only by claiming increase after the date of commencement of the second amendment Act of 1953 and again the total increase so claimable would not in any case exceed 5 per cent of the standard rent. 7. From the reading of Sections 10, 10A and 10-AA of the Act also, the scheme becomes clear. 7. From the reading of Sections 10, 10A and 10-AA of the Act also, the scheme becomes clear. The legislature was dealing with only one topic, viz., the increase in the existing liability of the landlord to pay a rate cess or tax in case of Section 10 and a rate or tax in case of Sections 10A & 10AA including general tax mentioned in Section 10AA leviable under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. It appears fairly clear that the legislature failed to provide for permitted increases in a case like the present and this provision may be a lacuna in the drafting of this piece of legislation. 8. Mr. Trivedi for the landlord laid emphasis on the opening part of Section and pointed out that in the phrase "in respect of any premises any rate, cess or tax" there are no words like "increase in" between the words "any" and "rate". This contention would not be helpful in determining the scope of Section 10 because of its operative portion which his been quoted earlier. If the contention of Mr. Trivedi that Section 10 governs the present case where liability is created for the first time is correct, the later portion of Section 10 which has been quoted more than once earlier, would be; rather redundant. It would not have been expressed in the terms in which it has been expressed; and it is the operative portion of Section 10 which makes the whole meaning of Section 10 quite clear. 9. It is, therefore, clear that Section 10 of the Act is not applicable to the present case; and the learned Judges of the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court were in error of law in awarding a decree for the amount of tax claimed in the present case. 10. No other contention was raised on behalf of any of the two sides. 11. In the result, the application is allowed. The decree passed by the Courts below is set aside; and the suit of the plaintiff is ordered to be dismissed In view of the question of construction of Section 10 involved in this case, it would be fair to order that each party will bear its own costs throughout. Rule made absolute in these terms. Application allowed.