JUDGMENT:- 1. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 17/06/2008 passed by the District Judge-I, Ichalkaranji whereby allowing the Revision Application filed by the original plaintiff, quashed and set aside the order (partly rejected) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ichalkaranji, thereby allowed the prayer of the Respondents to amend the plaint by holding that the Revision is tenable under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short,"the Bombay Rent Act"). 2. I have already taken a view in Writ Petition No.5435 of 2008 (Abeda Iqbal Karbhari alias Abeda Iqbal Patel Vs. Cormorant Investment Pvt. Ltd.) decided on 10/12/2008, that such Revision is maintainable by observing as under:- "19. It is pertinent to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Kaur & ors. v. Kaki & ors., (2007) 1 SCC 546 : "2. Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual’s whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos." 20. In a given case, any such order which is contrary to the well settled principle of law and or not in accordance with law, would definitely affect the substantial rights of the parties. Therefore, if any party preferred a Revision application and placed on record the Apex Court decisions and High Court decisions with this regard, granting or not granting amendment, the Revisional court needs to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. That can be done only after hearing both the parties in Revision. Even though, it is against the so called interlocutory or procedural order. In my view, the Revisional court has no choice but to entertain such Revision and passed appropriate order, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and prevailing law on the subject. 21. Another important facet observed by the Apex Court (G.L.Vijain Vs. K.Shankar (2006) 13 S.C.C. 136) in following paragraphs is also substantially affects the reasoning given in Sukhadev and J.M.Constructions Supra) (Supra):- "15. There is furthermore no dispute that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction in appropriate cases. The revisional jurisdiction, however, in effect and substance is an appellate jurisdiction. 16. In Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. There is furthermore no dispute that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction in appropriate cases. The revisional jurisdiction, however, in effect and substance is an appellate jurisdiction. 16. In Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 713 , this Court observed : (SCC P. 730, para 47) "47. A revisional jurisdiction as is well known involves exercise of appellate jurisdiction. (See Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar V. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, (1969) 2 SCC 74 and Nalakath Sainuddin V. Koorikadan Sulaiman, (2002) 6 SCC 1 . 22. Therefore, the revisional Court, need to exercise its jurisdiction if the conditions precedent laid down in Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Act are fulfilled. The limitation of power as contained in Section 115 of CPC is, therefore, not applicable. (G.L.Vijain Vs. K.Shankar, (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 136). 24. Resultantly, I am of the view that:- a) The Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Act gives/ provides wider power to the Revisional Court than Section 115 of C.P.C.. b) Any order, if it is not in accordance with law, and contrary to law or settled principle of law or perverse, but not appealable, a Revision is maintainable. c) The phrase "in accordance with law" has various facets. It is in use in every field of law. It covers various doctrines including the Doctrine of Binding Precedent, the Doctrine of Natural Justice and the practice and procedure of law specially when it affects the substantial rights of the parties. Therefore, any judgment or order need to be in accordance with law, whether interlocutory or final, if not then there is no bar, the Revision is maintainable, even against such order. 25. In my view, considering the various Supreme Court Judgments and even the Judgments of this Court as referred above, Sayarabi (Supra) and Pacific Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. East India Hotels Ltd., 2005(1) Bom.C.R.427, such Revision is maintainable. The submission that matter be referred to larger bench is also rejected in view of the Supreme Court Judgments and High Court Judgments referred above." 3. The amendment of the landlord to claim possession of the property, as observed, is necessary for the purpose of settling the question /controversy between the parties at earliest and as it is not different and inconsistent, in view of this there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The amendment of the landlord to claim possession of the property, as observed, is necessary for the purpose of settling the question /controversy between the parties at earliest and as it is not different and inconsistent, in view of this there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Court has awarded the costs also. The said order is within the framework of law and the record. There is no perversity. 4. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 5. The petitioners are granted four weeks time to take steps in the matter. The consequential amendment is also permitted.