RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. PANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition has been filed by the appellant- defendanttenant aggrieved by the judgment and eviction decree by dismissing the second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the concurrent eviction decree of two courts below on the ground of sub-letting and parting with possession by the judgment dated 27/11/2008.

(2.) MR . M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the review-petitioner made lengthy submissions for over three hours spread over in two days on the said review petition and the main contentions for seeking review of the judgment were only two fold :- (1) that in view of the list of partners of the firm M/s Dal Chand Visheshwar Das ('DCVD' for short) which has been produced along with review petition for the first time and which is a document not available before any of the courts upto the date of decision of second appeal, shows that there were common partners between the said firm DCVD and new firm M/s Chand Ratan Shyam Sunder ('CRSS' for short) and, therefore, the judgment giving eviction decree deserves to be recalled and reviewed and (2) that the Court had erred in awarding mesne profit to the plaintiff-landlord @ Rs. 5000/- p.m. commencing from November, 2008 even though there was no case made out by the plaintiff for the same nor any arguments were addressed to the Court on this aspect of the matter and, therefore, judgment deserves to be reviewed.

(3.) MR . Bhoot urged that though the application filed under order 41 Rule 2 CPC seeking amendment in the memo of appeal was treated as allowed in para No. 11 of the judgment but no additional substantial question of law was framed by the court and this was an apparent error in the judgment. The substantial question of law quoted in the judgment was framed at the time of admission of the appeal on 20th July, 1994 itself. However, since the counsels were permitted to raise their arguments about sufficiency of the pleadings on both the sides and the amendment in memo of appeal and additional grounds in the application under Order 41 Rule 2 pertained to this aspect only, it was stated in para 11 of the judgment that said application under Order 41 Rule 2 should be treated as allowed. However, since the said argument centered round the substantial question of law already framed about sub-letting and parting with the possession furnishing ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 there was no need to frame any additional substantial question of law and the question already framed has been decided by the judgment under review dated 27/11/2008.