JUDGMENT S.J. Deshpande, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the appellate Court under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The appellate Court has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act by its order and judgment dated 5th February, 1979. The petitioner, who is original tenant has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order passed by the appellate Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows : The petitioner is the original tenant of an open land bearing C.T.S. No. 298-A. The petitioner was paying Rs. 232.54 as rent to the landlords the respondents herein. The petitioner claims to be the assignee of one Karode, who executed a registered lease-deed in favour of the respondents on 6th June, 1947 wherein the open land in the above survey number ad measuring 17343 sq. feet was leased to said Karode for a period of 51 years for Rs. 3,599/- per annum. Respondents had filed suit against said Karode being Suit No. 51 of 1956 in which the standard rent of the said premises was fixed at Rs. 299.94. No purpose of the lease was specified in the deed executed between the respondents and said Karode had intended to build a theatre on the said land. The petitioner further states that the lease rights or Karode were acquired by the Bank and the petitioner herein purchased the said rights from the Bank and thus he became the purchaser and tenant of the land in question. He stated that the rent paid by him was Rs. 229.94 till the Pune Municipal Corporation acquired 3403 sq. ft. from the said land and thereafter the respondents reduced the rent to Rs. 232.54. 3. It appears that on 20th April, 1970 the respondents served a notice asking the petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises as the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1st October, 1969 to 31st March, 1970 making the total arrears of Rs. 2,092.86. The petitioner states that as demand of rent was excessive in view of the acquisition of the land by the Municipal Corporation, he made an application being Misc. 2,092.86. The petitioner states that as demand of rent was excessive in view of the acquisition of the land by the Municipal Corporation, he made an application being Misc. Application No. 404 of 1970 in the Small Causes Court at Pune under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act, for fixation of standard rent of the premises. 4. This application was contested by the respondents on various grounds that the standard rent was already fixed at Rs. 299.94 in suit No. 551 of 1956 and it would operate as res judicata on the petitioner. It was also alleged by the respondents that as the petitioner had filed Misc. Application No. 404 of 1970 and that was also being dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the further application i.e. present application is also barred. It was disputed that the rent payable was not excessive. Further contention seems to have been raised not in the written statement pressed in the arguments before the trial Court that the lease-deed being in regard to the open land and the whole lease-deed does not show that for what purpose it was leased out. The purpose was ascertained as being the construction of threatre. It appears that the petitioner had no personal knowledge about the lease and it was stated that the lease was not for the purpose of the items as mentioned in Section 6 of the Bombay Rent Act and construction of theatre which was asserted by the petitioner as the purpose cannot fail within the category of permitted lease to attract the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. It appears that the learned trial Judge ultimately tried all the points, which he has raised and he found that the alleged lease was not for the purpose of residence, education, business, trade or storage and the present application filed by the petitioner therefore, will not be maintainable at all. On the other point, the learned Judge of the trial Court found that the application was barred by the earlier decision in Suit No. 551 of 1956. He also found that the present application is barred in view of the dismissal of similar application No. 404 of 1970 which was dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. He also found that the present application is barred in view of the dismissal of similar application No. 404 of 1970 which was dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. On these findings, the learned Judge further found, that the standard rent which in this case will be ultimately fixed must be the agreed rent as the original plot of land admeasures 17343 sq. ft. and after the acquisition by Municipal Corporation Pune of 3402 sq. ft. of land from the said land, the agreed rent was proportionately reduced to Rs. 232.54. After recording these findings, the trial Judge dismissed the application by his order and judgment dated 4th April, 1975. 5. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate Court in revision as provided under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. Revisional Court after giving due consideration the points raised before it, dealt with firstly with the point of applicability of the Bombay Rent Act and after discussing the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Bombay Rent Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court it came to the conclusion that the Rent Act is not applicable to the demised land and therefore the petition for fixation of the standard rent made by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the trial Judge. Revisional Court also found that the provision of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the present application as the earlier application was dismissed for default. However, on the point whether the earlier decision in Civil Suit No. 551 of 1956 in regard to fixation of standard rent fixed in the aforesaid suit cannot therefore operate as res judicata for the present application as the area of the land is not the same in the previous suit and the present proceedings. The contention of the respondents was that the present application should be held to be barred under Section 11A of the Bombay Rent Act. To that extent the plea is rejected by the learned appellate Judge. However, on merits of the case, the revisional Court agreed with the view taken by the trial Court on its finding that the Rent Act is not applicable and the application was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To that extent the plea is rejected by the learned appellate Judge. However, on merits of the case, the revisional Court agreed with the view taken by the trial Court on its finding that the Rent Act is not applicable and the application was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result revision application was dismissed by the learned appellate Judge by his judgment and order dated 5th February 1979. It is this order which is being challenged by the petitioner-tenant in this Court. 6. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Counsel Shri Dalvi has pointed out to me that there is no case made out in the petition for interference under extraordinary powers of this Court. Findings made on the points raised by the Courts are justified in law and they cannot be said to be a material irregularity or mis-application of law. He also further pointed out that the application in fact has become infructuous as the substantive special suit has been filed by the landlords being Special Civil Suit No. 1179 of 1980 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for recovery of possession of the suit and after going through the record and the judgments of both the Courts below I am satisfied that the view taken by the Courts below is proper view in law on the facts of this case. Admittedly, the petitioner could not give proof in regard to the specific purpose of lease. Undisputedly, the lease was in respect of the open land. Unless it was proved that the lease was for the specific purpose such as for the purpose of residence, education, business, trade or storage, it would not be covered under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The reasoning of the learned Judge is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court and I see no reason to disagree with the said view. There is no error much less any patent error in coming to that conclusion. Therefore, I will have to confirm the order passed by appellate court in this case. 7. I may here point out that there was Civil Application No. 1305 of 1982, which was filed by way of additional evidence praying for necessary reduction in the rate of the rent as the petitioner was paying all along the taxes etc. Therefore, I will have to confirm the order passed by appellate court in this case. 7. I may here point out that there was Civil Application No. 1305 of 1982, which was filed by way of additional evidence praying for necessary reduction in the rate of the rent as the petitioner was paying all along the taxes etc. and the case of the petitioner in the said application seems to be that some error which ought to have been left out and the petitioner had no knowledge of the same. The petitioner says in this application that the compensation which was obtained by the respondents shows that some area is bound to be left with the petitioner is only 10671 sq. ft. Disputing certain rates of acquisition, it was contended in this application that this may be treated as an additional evidence, for the purpose of examining the rate and reduction in the rate of rent. It was prayed that the consequential order which might be passed in the petition may affect the petition so far as remission is concerned and therefore the prayer was made by this application that the hearing of this writ petition be stated. This application seems to have been filed on 3rd April, 1982. While the writ petition was filed on 12th July, 1979. On this short ground, the application filed by the petitioner is accompanied by the copy of the plaint in Suit No. 1179 of 1980, to which I have already made a reference. From the facts mentioned in application and the copy of the plaint in Suit No. 1179 of 1980, which is filed along with this application, it is obvious that the substantive claim of the petitioner and the respondents is now before the trial Court for decision and the claim of the rent also has been made out by way of not amount due in the plaint. In view of this fact I do not think that this application be considered at this stage and therefore it will stand rejected, on the ground of delay in making this application. 8. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the matter in controversy is ceased by the regular Civil Court as it happened in this case, the High Court will be loath to interfere at the interlocutory stage I have mentioned above. 8. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the matter in controversy is ceased by the regular Civil Court as it happened in this case, the High Court will be loath to interfere at the interlocutory stage I have mentioned above. The revisional Court and the trial Court have examined the standard rent application in the light of the contentions arrived at by the parties and the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below are supported by law laid down by the Supreme Court, which relate to the maintainability of the application itself. Secondly, they have also touched the jurisdictional point as to the entertainment of such application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act itself. These contentions being purely the questions of law and having been dealt with by the Courts below on a proper view of legal principles and the law applicable to the same, I do not find any error in their approach. The petitioner was unable to specify his case in regard to the purpose of lease as he was himself an assignee of the lease hold rights and had no knowledge of the circumstances in which the original lease was given and for what purpose it was actually taken. So the view taken by the Courts below that provisions of Section 6(1) of the Bombay Rent Act clearly operate and in the absence of any proof for which the lease is given if it is not proved within the meaning of Section 6(1) of the Bombay Rent, such as for residence, education, business, trade or storage the application filed under Section 11 of the Rent Act will not be maintainable at all. On this finding it is not necessary to consider the other contentions raised on their merits. However, the Courts below having considered the same, I find that the consideration of those points also is justified by the provisions of law. From the record it appears that Application No. 404 of 1970 was ultimately dismissed on 29th November, 1970 for non-appearance of the petitioner. The order passed on the said application shows that the petitioner who was applicant was absent when called out. Hence the matter was disposed with no order as to costs. From the record it appears that Application No. 404 of 1970 was ultimately dismissed on 29th November, 1970 for non-appearance of the petitioner. The order passed on the said application shows that the petitioner who was applicant was absent when called out. Hence the matter was disposed with no order as to costs. From the Roznama in the said application it appears that the respondents were present with their advocate and it is the only petitioner who was absent. So dismissal of the application was certainly under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if the dismissal is governed by Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code, the present application again filed by the petitioner on the same ground would certainly be barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are quite clear and they may not be involved going into merits of the application again. Having given my anxious considerations to the points decided by the Court below, I do not find that any basic error has been committed by the Courts below in arriving at the conclusions. Assuming for a while that the orders may not be justified, they are still based on a proper view of facts and law and they are not vitiated by any material defect or mis-application of law or error apparent on the face of record. The High Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not be interfered with such orders of the Courts below as they are within the jurisdiction and not vitiated by any material defect. 10. In this view of the matter I confirm the orders passed by the Courts below and especially when the matter is pending in the Civil Court it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the judgments and order passed by the Courts below. Having gone through the grounds taken in the petition and contentions raised therein, I, therefore do not find any substance in them. 11. In the result, the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs. Civil Application No. 1305 of 1982 also shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.