RAMJI PATEL Vs. IRUKULLA NARENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the Counsel for the review petitioner and Pallavi, Advocate, representing Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the Counsel for the review petitioner had pointed out that the Review C.M.P. No.567 of 2005 had been moved before this Court after the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23778 of 2004 before the Apex Court, and hence, the review petition is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel for review petitioner while further elaborating his submissions, had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 114 of C.P.C. and Order LXVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. and would contend that it is a case where both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had failed to consider several important points inclusive of question of jurisdiction. The Counsel would contend that the petitioners are the tenants. The landlord and tenant relationship and the quantum of rent are not in dispute. It is needless to say that the Rent Controller alone will have jurisdiction and hence, the dispute cannot be adjudicated by a Civil Court. Strong reliance was placed on B. Narasing Rao v. Parvathi Bai, 1977 ALT 627 and M/s. East India Corporation Ltd., v. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 1094. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating the submissions, had taken this Court through the portion of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the judgment of Appellate Court and would point out several omissions inclusive of non-consideration of aspect of mesne profits. The learned Counsel pointed out that this Court, without specifically framing any point for consideration as to the mesne profits, recorded findings. Hence, this being a mistake on the part of the Court, the same can be rectified by exercising the review jurisdiction. The learned Counsel further placed strong reliance on Board of Control for Cricket, India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others, 2005 (1) DT (SC) 35, to substantiate his stand taken in this regard. The learned Counsel also contends that the question of equity under Section 22 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, 1963 also to be considered and this aspect had not been properly considered by this Court.

(3.) Per contra, Smt Pallavi, Advocate, representing the learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that this is a long drawn litigation and in fact, the Trial Court had recorded detailed findings on all the aspects. That apart, the matter had been carried to the Apex Court by way of special leave. After the matter had been moved before the Apex Court for the reasons best known to him, the review petitioner had chosen to withdraw the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and having withdrawn the same, again the present review application had been filed. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that apart from the Review C.M.P. No.567 of 2004, C.M.P. No.568 of 2005 praying for the relief of stay also had been moved. In view of the pendency of said application, the matter is being adjourned from time to time before the Court at first instance. The learned Counsel also would contend that this attempt is yet another to procrastinate the proceedings and absolutely there are no bona fides on the part of the review petitioner. The learned Counsel further contends that even otherwise none of the ingredients as specified under Order LXVII Rule 1 C.P.C. are satisfied in the present case, and, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Counsel would contend that virtually elaborate submissions now made before this Court may amount to rehearing of the appeal, and the same is impermissible while exercising the review jurisdiction.