N.H. Bhatt, J.
1. This is a revision application by the tenant whose application under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act for having electric connection at her own cost was allowed by the Deputy Collector, the competent authority under the said provision. Under that section, a tenant desiring to get electricity supply at his own cost from a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 can apply to the Collector (which includes the Deputy Collector also) setting out the scheme for such supply if the owner of the premises is not willing to consent thereto.
2. In the case on hand, the Deputy Collector, the respondent No. 2 herein, had granted the request. Curiously enough the landlord moved the District Court of Rajkot by filing the Revision Application No. 21 of 1977. The learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot came to deal with that matter and he allowed the application of the landlord because in his view the application made by the tenant to the Collector did not set out the scheme of such supply.
3. Mr. P.V. Hathi, the learned advocate appearing for the applicantienant, firstly urged that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision application. The Court's powers in matters arising under the Bombay Rent Act are located in Section 29 of the Act. The said section makes provision for appeals from a decree or order made by a Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad and such Courts of Small Causes elsewhere under the provision of Small Causes Court Act, 1887 and also from a decree or order by the Court of the Civil Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Bombay Rent Act. Section 29(2) then provides for a revisional application and it is also confined to orders or decrees made by those Courts. Section 29(3) deals suo motu and other revisional powers and those powers are also for the purpose of enabling the Court to satisfy itself 'that the decree or order made in any suit or proceeding was according to law.' Nowhere the order under Section 23-A which is an administrative order is subjected to the revisional jurisdiction of the District Court. I therefore hold that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application against an order passed by the Collector or the Deputy Collector under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act.
4. Even on merits there was no case for interference at the hands of the learned Joint District Judge.
5. The application was accompanied by a sketch showing from what point the electric connection was to be taken. The learned Judge has no concern with it. If anybody could question it, it would be the licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. If the Deputy Collector, the sanctioning authority, was satisfied with the scheme furnished to him by the applicant-tenant, it was none of the business of the landlord to bother about-So on this ground also the impugned order is to be set aside. In the result, the revision application is allowed by setting aside the revisional order of the learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot and restoring the order of the Deputy Collector. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.