O R D E R Sri Masthan Saheb, herein after referred to as review petitioner filed the present review petition praying this Court to review the order made by this Court, dated 20.03.2005 in C.R.P.No.594 of 1998 which was filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) for the purpose of convenience. 2. Sri Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel representing the contesting respondents in Review C.M.P.No.8051 of 2005 raised an objection relating to the maintainability of review of an order made under the Act in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in GHANTASALA ESWARA RAO VS. GUNDIMI SOMASEKHAR AND ANOTHER(1). 3. Sri Sreenath Reddy, learned counsel representing the review petitioner would maintain that the view expressed by the Division Bench referred to supra need not be followed in the light of the legal position that this Court being a court of record, such power can be exercised under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, de hors the ordinary statutory powers i.e., whether such power is conferred specifically by a particular provision in the statute or not. The learned counsel placed strong reliance or SIVDEO SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS(2) ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VS. ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA(3) & MM.THOMAS VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER(4). 4. Heard the learned counsel on record. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in GHANTASALA ESWARA RAO VS. GUNDIMI SOMASEKHAR AND ANOTHER (Supra-1) at para 9 held as hereunder: “When the lis is disposed of by the Court it becomes functus officio in respect of the same issue. The Court cannot arrogate power to itself and re-hear the matter which has decided rights of the parties after becoming final. Power of review under the Civil Procedure Code is granted on very limited grounds, in the absence of express or implied conferment of the jurisdiction, Court cannot infer power. Therefore, in our view the power of review conferred under Order 47, on the exercising jurisdiction under other laws cannot be imported into the provisions of the special Act, in the absence of any express provision or gathered by necessary implication. The Act in question is a special and self- contained Act. As such, application for review of an order passed in revision by the High Court is not maintainable”. 6. The Act in question is a special and self- contained Act. As such, application for review of an order passed in revision by the High Court is not maintainable”. 6. In PATEL NARSHI THAKERSHl AND OTHERS VS. PRADYUMANSINGHJI(5), the Apex Court held that it is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. In SUBRAHMANYA AYYAR AND ANOTHER VS. GOVINDASAMI MOOPA-NAR AND OTHERS(6) while dealing with the power of review under the Madras Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, came to the conclusion that review as against an order made by the High Court under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable. It is no doubt true that in certain of the decisions, it was held that whenever some provisions of C.P.C are not in conflict with either the provisions of the Act or the Rules, the same can be made applicable. Whether the same principle can be extended even in relation to the power to exercise review is the question. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions SIVDEO SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (Supra-2). ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VS. ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA(Supra-3) and M.M.THOMAS VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER (Supra-4) and submissions at length were made that inasmuch as this Court being a court of record, such power of review can be exercised by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, irrespective of the fact that whether a particular statute confers the power of review or not. This Court is of the considered opinion that such broad proposition cannot be laid down. Whenever particular statute confers certain powers and such statute does not confer any authority or power to review, such power of review cannot be exercised. The Division Bench of this Court, in fact, considered this question in elaboration in GHANTASALA ESWARA RAO VS. GUNDIMI SOMASEKHAR AND ANOTHER (SUPRA-1). This court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the said binding decision of this Court, the review c.m.p. is not maintainable. It is needless to say that the other merits and de merits of the matter need not be touched inasmuch as the same is being dismissed as not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the review c.m.p. shall stand dismissed. No costs. --X—