Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. Through this review petition, the petitioner/tenant has sought review of the judgment and order dated 27.04.2006, by which the petition was dismissed with costs and following order was incorporated. "Since the litigation has remained pending for about six years and during this period, the petitioner-tenant has been enjoying the benefit of the premises in question situate in the heart of the city of Faizabad for a meagre sum of Rs. 125/- per month as rent, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice that the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court Faizabad on 01.12.2003 be implemented forthwith. I, therefore, direct that the peaceful possession of the premises in question shall be handed over by the petitioner to the landlord institution, respondent no. 1within one month from today." The tenant/petitioner has sought review for judgment passed by this Court on the ground that the judgment is erroneous and the error is apparent on the face of the record. It has further been mentioned that this Court has committed a manifest error, by passing the order, under review dated 27.04.2006, without proper appreciation of the fact that the suit for recovery of rent and eviction could not have been filed by the institution and some acceptances of rent for the property in question, does not ipso facto, confer ownership rights or title to the institution, in respect of the property in question. Repeatedly, the applicant has taken grounds that this Court has considered manifest error and totally failed to consider the case. It may be mentioned here that the opposite parties have filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use of occupation and for eviction against the petition through the small causes suit, which was decreed. The Revision filed against the said judgment was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2003 passed in SCC suit No. 01/2000 by the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Faizabad. Revision No. 10/2004 was dismissed. The tenant filed writ petition before this Court and delayed his eviction. The Revision filed against the said judgment was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2003 passed in SCC suit No. 01/2000 by the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Faizabad. Revision No. 10/2004 was dismissed. The tenant filed writ petition before this Court and delayed his eviction. After losing from this court finally, the tenant filed this review petition before this Court and has filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2695 of 2007 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which, he obtained stay of dispossession from the premises, in question and, the Hon'ble Apex Court listed the matter on 26.03.2007. What happened, thereafter, is not on the records of this file. But learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the appellant has moved this application for review on the ground that the educational institution was simply authorised by the real owners to receive rent from the premises in question and the institution was not competent to file suit for recovery of arrears of rent or for eviction. This matter has already been adjudicated upon by the court of Small Causes, Court of Revision and this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. After consideration on these aspects, this Court has dismissed the petition against which this review is not maintainable, in view of the settled law that the judgment, howsoever, erroneous it may be cannot be corrected under Order 47 Rule I C.P.C, if the error has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, which can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. In Meera Bhanja (Smt) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) 1995 (1) SCC 170 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held "It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In Meera Bhanja (Smt) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) 1995 (1) SCC 170 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held "It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:-(SCC p. 390, para 3) "It is true as observed by this court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court." "Now, it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and ot on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale wherein, K.C.Das Gupta, J. speaking for the Court has made the following observesations in connectin with an error apparent on the face of the record: An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ in certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." In Surendra Kumar Vakil v. Chief Executive Officer [2004 (22) LCD 1571], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "A point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous." In view of this settled legal position, as discussed earlier, the review petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the law laid down by this Court in D.S.M. Degree College v. Addl. District Judge [2003 (21) LCD 857], but under the facts of that case and the discussions as made above and the law as cited above, is of no consequence to the applicant. This review application has been moved with intent to perpetuate possession by the tenant through a dirty trick which deserves to be deprecated and curved in order to maintain the dignity of justice delivery system. In Gayatri Devi & ors. v. Shashi Pal Singh, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2070, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: ?This appeal demonstrates how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag on litigation to frustrate the results of a judicial determination in favour of the other side....... In Gayatri Devi & ors. v. Shashi Pal Singh, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2070, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: ?This appeal demonstrates how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag on litigation to frustrate the results of a judicial determination in favour of the other side....... On 1.11.1987 the appellant committed perhaps the gravest blunder of her life of letting out the suit property to the respondent-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.1300/-, which subsequently came to be increased to Rs.1500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1990..... The history of this litigation shows nothing but cussedness and lack of bona fides on the part of the respondent. Apart from his tenacity and determination to prevent the appellants from enjoying the fruits of the decree, there appears to be nothing commendable in the case. Even before us the same arguments of fraud, and that the appellants were not legally owners of the suit property, were pleaded..... In our view, the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation which we indicate by imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the respondent.? On the basis of discussions made above, the review petition is dismissed with Rs. 25,000 as costs, which shall be paid by the applicant to the opposite party within thirty days from today failing which, it shall be recovered through the agency of the revisional Court (Court of Second Additional District Judge, Faizabad, in this case) as arrears of land revenue. _____________