JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioner. 2. A quick review petition has been filed by the defendant-tenant in the present matter. The arguments on the second appeal of defendant-tenant were heard by this Court on 11.5.2011 and after two days, judgment was delivered by this Court on 13.5.2011 dismissing the second appeal in eviction decree passed against the defendant-tenant on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity of the respondent-landlord. On 16.5.2011, the present review petition has been filed, which came before this Court on 24.5.2011 and arguments on review petition were heard and learned counsel for the defendant-tenant (review-petitioner) Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Senior Advocate, assistant by Mr. Surendra Singh Rathore, was heard in the matter and he was also requested to give his arguments in brief written note as he submitted that arguments noticed in the judgment delivered by this Court on 13.5.2011 were not correct and, hence, review petition was filed. 3. Accordingly, Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate has filed brief written note of his arguments raised according to him, which are summarised below : (i) That new tenancy was created between the parties w.e.f. 1.11.1992 by converting two shops into one shop by removing the 'Pardi' wall 2 Rs. 500/- per month and so the suit for part of the tenanted premises i.e. one shop was and is not maintainable. (ii) That no argument was made that other shop was given by his brother of landlord. (iii) That neither the suit is for both the shops nor it was argued that suit for both the shops c:u not be filed by the plaintiff alone. (iv) That it was argue i that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was paid through receipt vide Exhibit-A/1 towards rent. This payment has nothing to do with the room in the first floor. (v) That learned trial Court accepted the payment of Rs. 35,000/- towards rent but the learned first appellate Court reversed this finding on conjectures. (vi) That neither the suit is for eviction for both the shops nor this argument was made. On the contrary, argument was that the suit cannot be filed for a part of the tenanted premises. (vii) That decree for rent for first floor room was refused and the learned Courts below passed the decree clearly in the nature of redemption of mortgage. 4. On the contrary, argument was that the suit cannot be filed for a part of the tenanted premises. (vii) That decree for rent for first floor room was refused and the learned Courts below passed the decree clearly in the nature of redemption of mortgage. 4. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner submitted that these arguments have wrongly been noticed in the judgment dated 13.5.2011 and same, therefore, calls for a recall/review. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the review-petition, this Court does not find any ground to recall/review the judgment dated 13.5.2011. 6. It has been clearly noticed in para 4 of the judgment while noticing the arguments of Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate that - (i) the suit for eviction itself was not maintainable as the plaintiff- respondent had given on rent only one shop to the defendant-tenant and claimed that other shop was given by his brother whereas with the permission of the plaintiff, the defendant-tenant had removed the wall between two shops and there was only one shop in the possession of the defendants-tenant. Therefore, the suit for both the shops could not be filed by the plaintiff alone." and (ii) Secondly, he submitted that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was not advanced as rent but it was a loan given to the plaintiff against which the first floor room was mortgaged with him and, therefore, the eviction suit could not be maintained for said room also. 7. In para 6 of the judgment, the third argument about new tenancy was also noticed by this Court in the following manner : " ... that a new tenancy came into force being on 1.1.1992 for a sum of Rs. 500/- for both the shops in question as against the rent of Rs. 290/- for one shop and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent could not maintain the eviction suit for both the shops in question." 8. In para 7 of the judgment, the answer of the Court to the aforesaid contentions is as under : "... the learned Courts below have rightly found that both the shops were given on rent to the defendant-tenant and without prejudice to inter se proprietary rights between the two owner-brothers, however, with the removal of wall in between it does not change the relationship of landlord and tenant qua the present parties. the learned Courts below have rightly found that both the shops were given on rent to the defendant-tenant and without prejudice to inter se proprietary rights between the two owner-brothers, however, with the removal of wall in between it does not change the relationship of landlord and tenant qua the present parties. It is well settled that question of title and ownership is not relevant in the eviction suits, particularly, in view of the fact that the defendant-appellant has been paying rent for both the shops to the present plaintiff-respondent, hence, he cannot claim that plaintiff could not have maintained the suit for both the shops taken together. The relationship of landlord and tenant is established on the basis of giving and taking of rent itself. It is an admitted case of the defendant-appellant that for joint shops, a new tenancy came into being on 1.1.1992 at the monthly rent of x500/- which rent was obviously paid to the plaint/respondent only, therefore, the defendant-tenant is not entitled to argue in the present second appeal that suit could not be maintained by the plaintiff with respect to both the shops." 9. As far as question of mortgage is concerned, para 8 of the judgment deals with said contention in the following manner : "As far as the first floor room is concerned, the Exhibit-1/A/4, referred above, which is an agreement between the parties dated 5.5.1995 is clear enough. it is not a document creating any mortgage rights in favour of defendant-tenant but the said room was given for temporary use and occupation for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, advanced by the defendant- tenant to the plaintiff-respondent with the stipulation that no rent would be charged for the said room nor any interest will be paid by the defendant-tenant, is sufficient to construe the said document as a 'rent note'. Therefore, the learned Courts below were justified in holding the relationship of landlord and tenant between these parties with respect to said room also." 10. Thus, all arguments as raised now were already noticed correctly. Mere some twist in the language of arguments now raised in the written note does not change the substance of arguments already raised and there is no factual error in the judgment dated 13.5.2011. All the arguments were duly met in the judgment under review and it was held that decree of eviction was justified. 11. Mere some twist in the language of arguments now raised in the written note does not change the substance of arguments already raised and there is no factual error in the judgment dated 13.5.2011. All the arguments were duly met in the judgment under review and it was held that decree of eviction was justified. 11. In the aforesaid opinion of this Court, there is no error apparent in the judgment dated 13.5.2011, which calls for a review/recall, therefore, this review petition being devoid of merit falls and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order also be sent to learned trial Court and opposite side forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******