( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) SO far as the petition against the order dismissing the revision by the high Court is concerned, on the facts of this case we do not find any merit in the same. It is accordingly dismissed. ( 4 ) IT seems on 4-2-2000 the appellant had filed a review petition and the high Court seems to have decided the review petition along with this impugned order. The High Court seems to think that what was heard on revision on the last date viz. 20-1-2000 of hearing is also the field of the review petition, hence rejected the review treating as if counsel want to reargue the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the review itself stands on distinct and separate grounds than the revision hence there is non-application of mind by the High Court in not examining the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that no review lies before the High Court in view of the provisions of sub-section (9) read with sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, the question whether review lies or not or whether there is any merit in the review, is not a matter for this Court to examine at this stage. Since the High court has not applied its mind separately on the review petition, it is proper the case be remanded back to the High Court for examining and deciding the same. ( 5 ) WITH the aforesaid observation the appeal succeeds to the aforesaid limited extent. Costs on the parties. ( 6 ) WE make it clear, if there are any arrears of rent/damages which the appellant has not paid up to September 2000, he shall deposit the same within a period of four weeks from today and also file proof of the same before the High Court. The High Court shall take up the review only after proof of this payment. ( 7 ) UNTIL six weeks from today and subject to the order to be passed by the high Court, eviction of the appellant shall remain stayed.