ORDER : In this revision, interesting and important question which has fallen in focus is as to whether a revision before this Court against the decision in a revision before the appellate Court is maintainable under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order passed in civil revision application No. 54 of 1978 by the Bench of two judges of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad, the respondents herein are the original applicants-tenants and the petitioners herein are the original opponents-landlords. 2. The original tenant one Shri Chatraji Parasjee, the father of opponents Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an application for fixation of standard rent being standard rent application No. 2229 of 1970 under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act in respect of the premises in his occupation as a tenant. The original tenant Chatraji Parasjee expired pending the said application and therefore, the respondents were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives. 3. According to the case of the tenants, the land admeasuring 1800 sq. yds. had been leased by the landlords out of the land bearing survey No. 649 at the yearly rent of Rs. 1,380 for 999 years. The original tenant had thereafter constructed 52 huts and Pan Gallas and had leased them to different tenants. According to the case of the tenant, subsequently registered rent note was executed in 1964 wherein area of rented land was described as 900 sq. yds. The tenant contended that it was so done through mistake. However, the landlord had started making claim from the tenant to pay double rent, as double area was in occupation of the tenant. 4. The landlord had sent a notice of demand of rent and claimed arrears of rent of Rs. 7,000/-. The tenant had thereafter filed an application for fixation of the standard rent as aforesaid. The landlord resisted the said application by filing reply Ex. 15, inter alia, contending that only land admeasuring 900 sq. yds had been given to the tenant under a registered rent note for a period of 999 years. It was also contended by the landlord that the tenant has unlawful encroached upon the additional land and when the land was measured, it was noticed that the tenant was actually in possession of the land admeasuring 1865 sq. yds had been given to the tenant under a registered rent note for a period of 999 years. It was also contended by the landlord that the tenant has unlawful encroached upon the additional land and when the land was measured, it was noticed that the tenant was actually in possession of the land admeasuring 1865 sq. yds. of land, instead of 900 sq. yds., as per the registered rent note, it was. therefore, contended by the landlord that the tenant is bound to pay rent for the larger area. The landlord also pleaded that the contractual rent of Rs. 1,380 per year for the land admeasuring 900 sq. yds is just and reasonable and requires no reduction. 5. After having examined the facts and circumstances and the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court judge was pleased to allow the said standard rent application of the tenant by passing an order on 22-6-1978 and thereby fixing the standard rent at Rs. 150/ - per month plus municipal taxes for the area admeasuring 1865 sq. yds. Obviously being dissatisfied with the judgment and order recorded by the learned trial Court Judge, the landlord preferred Civil Revision Application No. 54 of 1978 before the Bench of two Judges of the Small Cause Court, at Ahmedabad. Civil Revision of the tenant came to be dismissed by the Bench of two Judges on 3-5-1979. Thus, the order passed by the trial Court in a standard rent application came to be confirmed in the revision by the Bench of two Judges of the Small Causes Court, at Ahmedabad. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order by the first revisional Court, the original opponents-landlords have now come up before this Court by filing this second revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. 7. First of ail, the Court is required to consider as to whether a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act against the decision in a revision under Section 29(3) is competent and maintainable? Having examined the provisions of Section 29 and the entire scheme of appeal and revision contemplated under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, this Court has no hesitation in finding that such a second revision is incompetent and not maintainable. 8. Having examined the provisions of Section 29 and the entire scheme of appeal and revision contemplated under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, this Court has no hesitation in finding that such a second revision is incompetent and not maintainable. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act provides for an appeal against the judgment and decree or order recorded by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. Whereas sub-section (2) of Section 29 provides for revision before the High Court against any decision in appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 29. When no further appeal lies against any decision in an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, the High Court, may for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such impugned decision in appeal, was according to law, call for the case in which such decision is rendered and may pass such order thereto as it thinks appropriate. 9. It can very well be seen from the plain perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, that the revision lies before this Court only against a decision in an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, which means that the decision in a revision under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, is not subject to second revision under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. The present revision is filed against the decision in a revision and not in an appeal. The provision for revision before the Bench of two Judges in city of Ahmedabad and elsewhere the District Court, is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. The decision impugned in the present revision came to be recorded by the Bench of two Judges of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act in a revision. The decision impugned in the present revision came to be recorded by the Bench of two Judges of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act in a revision. It is very clear from sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act that where no appeal is provided from a decree or order or a suit or proceedings in the City of Ahmedabad, the Bench of two Judges specified in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 29 and elsewhere the District Court is empowered to exercise revisional powers for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order made, was according to law or not. 10. Having regard to the entire scheme of the provisions of Section 29, it becomes crystal clear that only one revision is entertain able by the District Court or by the High Court in a case where appeal does not lie against the impugned decision or order. It means that as per statutory scheme of the entire provisions of Section 29, in certain circumstances, appeal is provided under Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, whereas sub-section (3) of Section 29 provides for revision where no appeal lies under this section from decree or order or suit or proceedings in the city of Ahmedabad, the Bench of Two Judges specified in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act or elsewhere the District Court. Whereas sub-section (2) of Section 29 provides a revision against any decision in appeal. Under sub-section (1) of Section 29, thus, where no further appeal is provided against any decision in appeal under sub-section (1), High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal, was according to law, call for record in which such a decision was recorded and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks appropriate. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the entire scope and the scheme of the provisions of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, it becomes very clear that a revision under sub-section (2) of Section 29 against the decision in a revision under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act is incompetent and not maintainable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the entire scope and the scheme of the provisions of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, it becomes very clear that a revision under sub-section (2) of Section 29 against the decision in a revision under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act is incompetent and not maintainable. In other words, second revision under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act is incompetent as it is not statutorily contemplated. It is not disputed that the revision on hand, appeal is preferred under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act against the judgment and decision rendered in a Civil Revision Application No. 54 of 1978 under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, the present revision would tantamount to second revision and/or a revision against revision which is not competent and maintainable under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, on this ground itself, this revision requires to be rejected. 12. However apart from the aforesaid statutory hurdle, this Court has considered the facts and circumstances and had found no substance in this revision. The views and ultimate conclusion recorded by the Courts below could not be said to be unreasonable, unjust, perverse or illegal requiring interference of this Court in a limited jurisdictional sweep under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, alternatively also, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this revision is found (sic) and therefore, it is required to be dismissed. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case and the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the discussion as aforesaid this revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Revision petition dismissed.