CHANDRALATA GUPTA Vs. UMESH KUMAR SINHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been preferred against the order dated 12-4-2010 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal in Case No. 52/ RCA/2006, reviewing the earlier order dated 15-2-2010 on the ground that it suffered from patent error of law. The proceeding, under Chapter III-A of the Act, for eviction of the respondent was initiated upon application moved by the petitioner, a widow, under Section 23-A (b) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent raised an objection, by way of an application under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. 1899 (for short 'the Stamp Act') read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'CPC'). to the effect that being an insufficiently stamped instrument of partition, as defined under Section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act, the Family Settlement Deed, sought to be tendered in evidence by the petitioner as document of title was admissible only after payment of requisite duty and penalty. In reply, the petitioner, while asserting that subject matter of the deed was an ancestral property, termed the contention as misconceived. After hearing the arguments, the RCA, vide order dated 15-2-2010, proceeded to reject the objection for the following reasons :-

(3.) Legality and propriety of the impugned order have been challenged primarily on the ground that it is passed in excess of jurisdiction. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, 1997 8 SCC 715, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that scope of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein and, therefore, review jurisdiction cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction.