SHAMIM AHMED ALIAS SHAMIM Vs. NASEEBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 16.9.1997, dismissing CR 753/97 under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which was directed against the order refusing leave to contest under Section 25-B(4) and (5) of the Act in the proceedings under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act, is sought to be reviewed under Order 47, Rule I, Civil Procedure Code by the applicant tenant.

(2.) The main plank of the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant/tenant seeking review of order dated 16.9.1997 is that the dismissal of revision application under Section 25-B(8) of the Act vide order dated 16.9.1997 is by following the minority view in the case of Precision Steel Engineering Works and Another v. Prerndeva Nimnjandeva Tayal, 1982(3) SCR p: 270 that as per the majority view in the aforesaid decision for the purpose of deciding leave to contest application under Section 25-B(4) & (5) of the Act it would be the affidavit filed by the tenant seeking leave to contest should only be taken into consideration and considering the affidavit filed by the tenant seeking leave to contest, the question whether leave to contest should be granted or not should be decided and that the affidavit in reply filed by the landlord should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding application undersection 25-B(4) & (5) of the Act. It is further contended that the law laid down by the Court is binding on every one and if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court appropriate remedy is to have it corrected byjudicial review. In this regard, reliance is placed in the decision in the case of M/s. Pacraft (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P.F.C.& Ors., JT 1995(8) SC p. 405. There can be no disagreement with this proposition of law.

(3.) In the case of Precision Steel & Engineering Works and Another v. Prerndeva Niranjandeva Tayal, (supra) it has been, per majority, held :