PUSHPA VAJPAYEE Vs. SACHIN DUTT TEWARI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The delay in filing the Review Application No.28538 of 2016 in re: Rent Control No.72 of 2014, as referred above, is condoned.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, who has also sought review, has submitted that the release application was filed by the landlord on the ground that the building was in dilapidated condition and beyond repairs. The landlord had failed to prove the same, but the release application was allowed merely on the ground that since the boundary wall had fallen down and the application for repair was rejected, therefore, the building was in dilapidated condition. In fact, it was well settled from the evidence that the boundary wall was damaged by the landlord himself and there was no evidence on record to the effect that the building was in dilapidated condition. Moreover the boundary wall was not part of the building and merely on the ground that the boundary wall had fallen, the whole building could not be held to be in dilapidated condition. This Court while deciding the writ petition did not take into consideration the aforesaid facts and as such the judgment and order passed by this Court on 18.03.2015 requires review of the matter.

(3.) The law relating to the review of a judgment and order is well settled that a judgment and order cannot be reviewed unless it is found that there is error apparent on the face of record or there is discovery new and important matter, which was not in the knowledge of the party at the time the order was passed. The power of review does not permit the Court to go into the merits of the case and take a different view.