M JAGADEESAN Vs. K SELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions has filed these Review Applications before this Court praying for the review of the order dated 12.02.2008 made in C.R.P. NPD Nos. 1095 to 1097 of 2004 and resultantly to revise the orders so passed therein.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the review applicant/petitioner urges before this Court that the review applications have been filed before this Court on admitted facts and only Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the T.N. Act 18 of 1960 is applicable to the facts of the present case and Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not applicable and that apart Section 10(4) of the T.N. Act 18 of 1960 has no application to the employees mentioned in the G.O.MS. No. 3440,(Home) dated 27th October 1960 (Published in Fort St. George, Gazette dated 9th November 1960 Part II Section 2 at page 692) and the notification All Departments of the State and Central Government in the State shall be deemed to be engaged in essential services for the purpose of Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act" applies to Departments who are tenants and not to its Employees and as a matter of fact the revision petitioner/landlord is in occupation of the first floor for the purpose of residence and the ground floor is sought for a non residential purpose and therefore only Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is applicable and not Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and therefore there is an 'Error Apparent on the Face of Record' and if a landlord resides in one portion then Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is only applicable and not Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.

(3.) Expatiating his submissions, the learned Counsel for the review applicant/revision petitioner submits that 'A Mistake Apparent from the record' also includes an obvious error of law and to lend support to his contention, he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court M.K. Venkatachalam, I.T.O. and Anr. v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd., 1958 AIR(SC) 875 at page 880 and 881, wherein at Paragraph No. 6 it is held as follows: