DEWAN SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the review of my order dated October 3, 1991 passed in Civil Revision 3823 of 1985.

(2.) Admittedly the application has been filed after an inordinate delay of about two years and eight months. For the reasons mentioned in the order passed today in Civil Miscellaneous 5565-CII of 1994 prayer for condonation of this delay has been rejected. Consequently, the review application is also dismissed being time barred.

(3.) Even on merits, I find no ground to review the order passed in the revision petition. In the appeal filed before the District Judge against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, the parties arrived at a settlement according to which the appeal was to be withdrawn and the petitioner-tenant was not to be evicted from the demised premises till the dispute between the parties which was pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner was settled. At the time of deciding the revision petition, counsel for the parties stated before the Court that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had by his order dated 15.4.1991 decided the dispute in favour of the landlord and against the petitioner holding that the respondent (landlord) was the owner of the demised premises. What is urged now is that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 15.4.1991 had been stayed by the Commissioner in revision. May be it was so, but the revision petition before the Commissioner also stands dismissed. Merely because operation of that order was stayed when the revision petition was decided on 3.10.1991 is no ground to review the order in revision petition. Now when that order stands confirmed by the Commissioner, the petitioners may have filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner but the same is yet to be listed for admission and, in any case, this does not justify the review of the order passed in the revision petition. Moreover, the respondent purchased the property on 4.3.1980 and the petitioners have continued to remain in possession thereof till date without there being any justification. It is high time that they should deliver possession of the premises to its rightful owner.