G S GUPTA Vs. BASHEER AHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition arises out of a, judgment of this Court dated 31-3-1977 in CRP. No.1086 of 1974, allowing the petition of the landlord under S.21(1)(h) of the Karnataka House Rent Control Act, 1961 in H.R.C.No.544/1966 and thereby asking the petitioner-tenant to vacate the schedule premises.

(2.) As evident, the petition for eviction was filed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord. It was contested on a variety of grounds and the learned Munsiff in the first instance allowed the petition. Thereafter, the tenant came in appeal before the learned District Judge. This too was dismissed. A revision was filed before the High Court which was C.R.P.No.633/1970 and a learned Judge of this Court on 19-7-1971 confirmed the finding of the District Judge on the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the premises by the landlord. Having confirmed that finding, however, the learned Judge found that the landlord could evict the tenant only if the other condition regarding comparative hardship of his own as compared to the hardship to be incurred by the tenant was satisfied. According to the learned Judge, the learned District Judge did not adequately decide the plea referable to comparative hardship and therefore on that question alone the case was remanded to the District Judge for de novo hearing of the appeal on the question of comparative hardship. During the pendency of the revision in the High Court, one of the landlords, namely, Basheer Ahamed died and his legal representatives were brought on the record. After the remand, the learned District Judge however also decided the question regarding bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord and his finding was against the landlord. With that finding the petition was dismissed. Against, that order of the learned District Judge, CRP. No.1086 of 1974 was filed by the landlord in this Court. While deciding C.R.P.No.1086/1974 this Court considered that the learned District Judge was not required to give a de novo finding on the question of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. According to the decision of the Court, any plea in respect of that question was either given up by the tenant or decided against him. Therefore, the principle of res judicata applied and the decision of the learned Judge was final between the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, the plea as to the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord could not be controverted on behalf of the tenant before the learned District Judge. Any finding contrary to tha,t plea and in favour of the tenant, could not be given and as such this Court set aside the finding of the learned District Judge. On the question of comparative hardship, this Court further decided in favour of the landlord and thereby allowing CRP.No.1086/1974, the eviction petition was granted. The present review petition is directed against that order of this Court.

(3.) Sri Shekhara Shetty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, took assistance from a decision of this Court in K. Anantharama Setty v. T. Manappa, (1966) 1 MysLJ. 649, where his Lordship held that the High Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and therefore it has always jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. It was held that the High Court can entertain a petition for review of an order passed in revision. The point canvassed in that case before the Court was that the judgment of the High Court was in a revision preferred under S.50 of the Karnataka House Rent Control Act, 1961 and since no review is provided against the judgment in that Act, the petition for review was not maintainable. While answering that preliminary objection raised in that case, His Lordship referred to Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and considered that the High Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and therefore was in a position always to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. No one can quarrel with this proposition. The High Court may have power and jurisdiction to correct its own error and perhaps the plea may not be sustainable that a decision of the High Court in a revision under S.50 of Karnataka House Rent Control Act, 1961 was not per se subject to review. But the question before the Court is, as to whether a miscarriage of justice had really resulted or any grave and palpable error was committed so that the principles of the review so well known under the C.P.Code, are to be harnessed for the purpose of granting relief to the petitioner. In my opinion, the principles set down in Or.47, R.1 C.P. Code may be employed by way of analogy, and a case of review directly covered under that provision would nevertheless be considered a case of plenary jurisdiction for correction of grave and palpable error committed by the Court. With that point of view, one has to. refer to the provisions contained in Or.47, R.1 of the C.P.Code and the learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that in the present case, the petitioner neither discovered any new and important matter nor evidence which was not within the knowledge of either party nor some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason, so that it could be held that there was a grave and apparant error in the judgment of the Court. Sri Shekhara Shetty, learned Counsel on the other hand urged, that the contentions as to the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or as to the case having other sufficient reason for review are satisfied and therefore even under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC, a case of review is made out.