ULHAS SAVORDEKAR Vs. TILAK RAJ BALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) seeks a review of the Judgment dated 21st April, 2005 of this Court in First Appeals No. 48/1999 and 76/2000.

(2.) The petitioner is sued by the respondent, inter alia, for compensation and for recovery of possession of premises handed over to him by the respondent. The respondent is himself a tenant of the premises. So this is not a suit by the owner. The trial Court negatived the plea of the petitioner that he was a tenant or lessee, but recorded a finding that he is a licensee. In Appeal, this Court held that the petitioner is not even a licensee but is running the business under a contract of management. According to the petitioner, an important feature of this case is his contention that the respondent had transferred the excise license to him on payment of monthly compensation of Rs.2500.00 for running the liquor shop by which he was placed in possession. This transfer was contrary to the excise rules. Therefore, by virtue of Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act, the respondent was not entitled to any relief by way of compensation or for recovery of possession since he had entered into an illegal transaction. The respondent was also not entitled to the monetary relief and recovery of possession on the ground that he was himself a tenant. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had cited four decisions in support of the proposition that if a license is transferred contrary to the provisions of law, the transferor is not entitled to claim any monetary relief and recovery of possession by virtue of Sec. 23 of the Contract Act.

(3.) Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this point namely that the excise license was illegally transferred by the respondent to the petitioner and therefore the respondent is not entitled to claim any monetary relief and recovery of possession was argued before this Court. However, this Court negatived the contention without effectively dealing with the point and without considering the decisions relied by the petitioner and therefore the Judgment of this Court is vitiated by sufficient reason akin to mistake or error apparent on the face of the record for setting aside the judgment. The learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and another V/s. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, 1954 AIR(SC) 526, where their Lordships have expounded on the scope of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of Civil P.C., 1908. In paragraph 34, their Lordships have observed as follows :