D ANTHONY Vs. M RAJYALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed to review the judgments delivered by me on 7th August, 1981 dismissing the C.R.P. Nos. 1128/1981 and 1132/1981. These two Civil Revision Petitions were preferred under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradash Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The ground upon which the review is sought is that under 3 mistake of fact, it was represented by the counsel for the parties at the time of the hearing of the Civil Revision petitions, that the applications filed by the revision petitioners before the Rent Controller for setting aside the exparte order of eviction were dismissed and that the appeal preferred against the said orders were also dismissed. As a matter of fact, it is stated, the said Interlocutory applications are not disposed of and are still pending. This fact, it is stated, came to the knowledge of the petitioners and their counsel only after the disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions. It is submitted that if the correct facts were known, this court would not have come to the conclusion which it ultimately came to in the Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) In these petitions, a preliminary objection is raised by Shri C. Anand Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents that the review petitions themselves are not maintainable. He relies upon the decision of Lakshmaiah J in C M P Nos.1305/70 and 489/1971, dt. 6-8-1971. The first question that arises is whether the preliminary objection has to be upheld or not?

(3.) Lakshmaiah, J held that the Act or the Rules made thereunder do hot provide for review and that the right of review cannot be invoked under the inherent powers of the Court. The learned Judge was of the view that the right of review hss to be conferred by the statute and since the Coae of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act in to to, the review petition is not maintainable.