GANTASALA ESWARA RAO Vs. GUNDIMI SOMASCKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is posted before the Division Bench pursuant to an order of the learned single Judge who noticed apparent conflict between two decisions of learned single Judges reported in D. Hanumayya v. G. Radhakrishna Murthy, 1989 (2) ALT 100; and D. Anthoney v. M. Raja Lakshmi, 1982 (1) An.WR 412, followed by G Savitramma v. T. Sarojini, 1988 (1) APLJ 461. Accordingly, observing that, "in the said circumstances, I deem this a fit case to be posted before a Division Bench of this Court for an authoritative decision as to whether this Court has the power to review its own orders arising under Section 21 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, directed the office to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for orders, for posting the matter before a Division Bench.

(2.) Tenant is the petitioner whose revision petition was dismissed at the stage of admission on the ground that the respondent-landlord required the demised premises for starting business and that the said requirement is bona fide which was accepted by both the Tribunals and confirmed by the High Court in revision. However, the petitioner filed an application for review. Respondents objected that the review petition is not maintainable; inasmuch as the Court has no power.

(3.) Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner relying on a decision reported in D. Hanumayya v. G. Radhakrishna Murthy (supra) submits that review petition is maintainable; while the learned Counsel appearing for respondent placed reliance on D. Anthoney v. M. Rajya Lakshmi (supra) and G. Savitramma v. T. Sarojini (supra), in support of his contention that review petition is not maintainable.