RAJ KUMAR RAMAVTAR CHOURASIA Vs. MATHEW CHARIAN CHRISTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition and the short question for consideration is whether an error not of fact but of law or rather an erroneous application of law, can be a ground for review under O. 47 R. 1 of the Coode of Civil Procedure ?

(2.) The judgment of which the review is sought by this application was delivered by the learned single Judge of this couort, but since he (R. S. Padhye J. ) is not now available, this application under the Rules jhas come up before us for hearing and disposal.

(3.) The present applicant (original plaintiff ) as the landlord of the premises in question, approached the Rent controller for grant of permission to seve a notice on the non-0applicant mathe (orginnal permission granted by the Rent Controller to the applicant was confirmed in appeal by the Resident Deputy Collector. It appers that immediately after the grant of permission bby the Rent Controller, the applicant served a quit notice, determined the tenancy and filed a civil suit. During the pendency of this civil suit, however the permission so granted y the Rent Controllar came to be confirmed in appeal bythe Resident Deputy Colector. The suit was decreed in favour of tha applicant and the first appeal preferred by the tenant (defendant) was dismissed. The second appeal filed by the tenant which was heard by the lerned single Judge was allowed on 19-8-1982 holding, for the first time, that the notice to quit that was given founded on the permission granted by the Rent Controllar before it was confirmed by the appellate Court was premature and as suchthe suit was also not maintainable.