HARI SINGH Vs. SANTOSH SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of RA-9/87, I.A.674/88 and I.A. 9308/91.

(2.) A brief resume of facts in the background, leading to the filing and hearingof these applications is necessary. The plaintiff (who has moved these two applications) is the owner of house No. C-32, Green Park, New Delhi. He filed a suit forejectment of the defendant/non-petitioner which was dismissed by the Addl RentController, but was decreed by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. The order ofeviction was made on 30.7.81. The plaintiff got vacant possession on 27.8.1991. Theplaintiff then filed suit No-1676/82 seeking assessment of mesne profits for allegedunauthorised use and occupation of the premises by the defendant for the period10.11.1974 to 27.8.81 with interest and special costs. The Court framed a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit. Placing reliance on the decision of theSupreme Court in Smt Chander Kali v. Jagdish Singh Thakur, 1977 SC 2262, thisCourt by its judgment dated 8.1.1987 held the suit for recovery of mesne profits tobe not maintainable and directed the same to be dismissed. On 6.2.1987, theplaintiff filed RA 9/87 seeking review of the judgment dated 8.1.1987. Theapplication was defective and on being returned by the Registry, was re-filed on10.2.1987. It is an admitted fact that as against the judgment dated 8.1.87 an appealwas preferred by the plaintiff before a Division Bench of this Court, which appealwas dismissed in limine, though on merits of the case.

(3.) It appears that this Court entertained some doubt about the maintainabilityof the application for review. Having become aware of the same, the plaintiffmoved I.A. 9308/91 referring to Rule 2 Chapter II of Delhi High Court Rules(Original Side) and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code requiring the following questions to bereferred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for favour of constituting a Division Bench todecide the same: