YOGENDER KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. SHASHIBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat No. 860/2014

(2.) SINCE appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondents/caveators, the caveat stands discharged.

(3.) IT is not the case of the petitioners/tenants that certain arguments were made on behalf of the petitioners/tenants when the rent control revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 4.9.2014, and that such arguments are not noted in the judgment. Therefore, the petitioners/tenants had obviously enough opportunity to re -argue their case on merits before this Court before the judgment dated 4.9.2014 was pronounced by this Court and the rent control revision petition was dismissed. As stated above, this order has achieved finality because SLP against this petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17.9.2014 and the liberty given by the Supreme Court in the present case is extremely limited and conditioned by the expression "if permissible under the law". The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 17.9.2014 made the strict observations of " if permissible under the law" because obviously review as per Section 25B(9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') is not permissible before the Additional Rent Controller before whom the petitioners/tenants have wrongly filed the review petition because the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller merged with the judgment passed by this Court dated 4.9.2014. Section 25B(9) of the Act reads as under: