JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. The review-petitioner has sought review of the judgement passed by this Court on 12.3.2013, in Writ Petition No. 125 of 2009 (R/C), whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the review-petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite parties. 3. Review of the judgment has been sought on the ground that this Court while dismissing the writ petition came to a wrong conclusion that the review-petitioner did not raise the plea of notice before the revisional court and in the present writ petition. Another ground for review of the judgment which has been taken is that this Court did not consider the plea of the review petitioner that none of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20 of Act No. 13 of 1972 exist warranting and justifying the decree of ejectment. 4. The learned counsel for the review-petitioner has submitted that a decree for ejectment under the provision of Act No.13 of 1972 can be passed only after termination of tenancy by giving a notice in writing. The review petitioner in his written statement before the learned Judge Small Causes had specifically challenged that no notice was ever served upon him and as such the suit for ejectment was not maintainable. This fact is evident from the judgement of the trial court itself. The learned trial court inspite of specific pleadings, did not frame any issue as to whether the tenancy of the review petitioner was terminated by serving valid notice. The learned trial court passed an erroneous decree of eviction against which a revision was filed before the District Judge which too was dismissed without disclosing as to whether the notice was actually served upon the review-petitioner or not? This Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that the review-petitioner did not take it as a ground before the revisional court that the notice was not served. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that even if no such ground was taken in revision, the revisional court was under statutory obligation to examine that sufficient grounds for passing of a decree of eviction exist or not? 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that even if no such ground was taken in revision, the revisional court was under statutory obligation to examine that sufficient grounds for passing of a decree of eviction exist or not? The review-petitioner by way of filing the writ petition before this Court also took it as a ground that both the courts below committed an error by decreeing the suit and acted illegality against the mandatory provision of Section 20 of the Act. 6. Since the issue with regard to service of notice of termination of tenancy was the core question, therefore, this Court instead of dismissing the writ petition ought to have remanded the matter to he trial court for framing the specific issue on the point of service of notice and then decide the case afresh. 7. Shri R.N. Tilhari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, has argued that this Court while dismissing the writ petition has made clear observation that no such ground was taken by the review petitioner either before the revisional court or before this Court. It is a settled law that a new ground cannot be raised at the stage of the writ petition if the same has not been taken earlier. Moreover, the scope of review is very limited and this Court should not interfere unless it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of record. 8. The scope of review has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2013) 15 SCC page 534, N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu Kathuria and others. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the review jurisdiction is extremely limited. Unless there is a mistake apparent on the face of record, the judgement does not call for review. The mistake apparent on the face on record means that mistake is still evident and needs no search. Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 9. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court while exercising the power of review cannot rehear the matter on merit. Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 9. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court while exercising the power of review cannot rehear the matter on merit. The grounds taken by the review-petitioner require the court to re-examine the entire matter on merit which is not permissible, while exercising the power of review. The learned counsel for the review- petitioner has failed to indicate any error apparent on the face on record or any mistake in the judgment. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any sufficient ground to admit this review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.