KALEEM AKTER SIDDIQUI Vs. SOMA SUDHEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 114 C.P.C. seeking to review the order dated 18-08-2011, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1435 of 2011 where under and whereby this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition confirming the judgment dated 22-03-2011 passed in R.A. No. 157 of 2010 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (For brevity, 'the appellate authority') and as such the order dated 26-04-2010 passed in R.C. No. 50 of 2008 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad (For brevity, 'the Rent Controller'). Whereas the Review Petitioner is the Petitioner, the first Respondent is the Respondent in R.C. No. 50 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, I refer them as arrayed in R.C. No. 50 of 2008.

(2.) The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is not in accordance with law as it is hit by doctrine of per incurium in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case between Sunita Rani and others Vs. Sri Chand and others, 2009 10 SCC 628. His main submission is that once an application filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant is dismissed, the tenant enjoys all the protections followed by the Rent Control Act including the one against enhancement of rent. His main submission is that since the eviction petition filed by the landlord is dismissed, his claim for enhancement of rent ought to have been rejected. It is also his submission that he could not cite the above referred decision before the Court while arguing the matter. He has relied on a decision of this Court in case between D. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. M. Sankara Ratnamaiah,1979 1 APLJ 19and also on a decision in case between Gangamma Vs. Venkanna, 1957 AIR(AP) 481. He has also relied on a judgement of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2271 of 2010 raised out of a S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7615 of 2009 and also in an order of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 129 of 2003 in case between Abdul Rehman Vs. Saraswathi Prasad Singh and also on a decision of the Apex Court in case between Government of A.P. and another Vs. B. Satyanarayana Rao (dead) by L.Rs and others, 2000 4 SCC 262.

(3.) Sri K. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents herein submits that merely on the ground of non citing of certain decisions a review petition is not maintainable and in support of his contentions, he has relied on a decision of this Court in case between Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Director General of Fire Services, A.P., Hyderabad and others, 2010 5 ALT 609.