JUDGMENT 1. - This review petition by the plaintiff has been filed in unusual circumstances. A suit was filed for eviction of a shop situated in Nasirabad Cantonment Area. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer by judgment dated May 31, 1983, and the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment was decreed. The defendants then filed a second appeal before this court which was registered as 167/1983. This appeal came up for hearing on April 29, 1985 and following order was passed by D. L. Mehta, J. "29-4-85 Hon'ble Mehta, J. Mr. S.M. Mehta, for the appellant; Mr. N.L. Tibrewal, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Shri Tibrewal accepts notices on behalf of the respondents. Shri Tibrewal learned counsel for the respondents with all fairness has submitted that on the following points, the court below has not given the finding. (1) Comparative Hardship; and (2) Partial ejectment. With the consent of both the parties, the following additional issues are framed; (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case later (sic) hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the partial ejectment will satisfy the requirements partially ? Both the issues are submitted to the court below for recording the evidence and for the finding on both issues. The court below is directed to record the evidence of the parties on these issues and send the record of the finding of these issues as soon as possible. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on May 27, 1985. The record of the lower court may be sent immediately." 2. After the above decision this court in Devilal Rathi v. Prem Chand & ors. 1987(1) RLR 785 and Smt. Chandra Kala and others v. Smt Jeewani & Ors., 1987 (1) RLR 795 held that the provisions of Rent Control Act was not applicable to the premises situated in the Nasirabad Cantonment Area. The plaintiff in these circumstances submitted an application to the trial court that the additional issues framed by the High Court by order dated April 29, 1985 were no longer necessary and the matter may be referred to the High Court. The plaintiff in these circumstances submitted an application to the trial court that the additional issues framed by the High Court by order dated April 29, 1985 were no longer necessary and the matter may be referred to the High Court. The application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court by order dated Oct. 30, 1978. The plaintiff filed a revision against the order dated October 30, 1987 and the revision came up for consideration before S.C. Agrawal, J. On Nov., 20, 1987, S.C. Agrawal, J. dismissed the revision with the observations that the petitioner if so advised may file appeal to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff then moved an application for correction of the order dated November 20, 1987 and S.C. Agrawal J. by order dated December 17, 1987 ordered as under : "Mr. G.G. Sharma for the petitioner. It appears that the words 'review or' have not been recorded in the order dated 20-11-87 between the words "may file" and "appeal" to the Supreme Court "in the said order." Sd/- (S.C. Agrawal, J) 3. As a result of the above order of Agrawal J. the words "review" also came to be inserted in the order dated November 20, 1987 and the ultimate result is that the revision of the plaintiff shall be deemed to be dismissed with a direction that the petitioner if so advised may file review or appeal to the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the present review petition has been filed on January 11, 1988. This revision petition was directed by the Chief Justice to be listed before regular civil bench by order dated January 20, 1988. In these circumstances, this revision petition has come for consideration before me. 4. Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents, raised an objection that this review petition is barred by limitation as it has been filed against the order dated April 29, 1985 and it is obviously barred by limitation. I see no force in this connection. I have already mentioned the detailed facts of the case and the reason for filing the present review petition on January 11, 1988 are evident and the plaintiff-petitioner is not at all responsible for the delay in filing the present petition. A litigant cannot be penalised for the different orders passed by different courts in order to seek any relief. I have already mentioned the detailed facts of the case and the reason for filing the present review petition on January 11, 1988 are evident and the plaintiff-petitioner is not at all responsible for the delay in filing the present petition. A litigant cannot be penalised for the different orders passed by different courts in order to seek any relief. The trial court was not prepared to refer the matter to the High Court and had not taken note of the decision of this Court according to which the additional issues for holding an enquiry regarding the comparative hardship and partial eviction were not at all necessary as the Rent Control Act was not applicable. When the plaintiff approached this court in a revision against the order of the trial court then the revision was dismissed with the observations that the plaintiff may file a review if so advised. Now the plaintiff has filed the present review petition and in my view the objection taken by the respondents with regard to the limitation had no legs to stand. 5. Now coming to the merits of this petition, this court has clearly laid down that the Rent Control Act is not applicable to the premises situated in Nasirabad Cantonment Area. It is not in dispute that the premises in question are situated in Nasirabad Cantonment Area. In view of these circumstances, there is no question of holding any enquiry with regard to the additional issues framed by D.L. Mehta, J. by order dated April 29, 1985. The second appeal No. 167/1983 will have to be heard afresh and the order of remand dated April 29, 1985 passed in the above appeal stands revoked. 6. In the result, this review petition is allowed. The order dated April 29, 1985 passed in second appeal No. 167/1983 is set aside and the second appeal will now be heard on merits.Review Allowed. *******