Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 951 (MAD)

S. Parthasarathi v. N. G. Gandhi Chettiar

2015-02-17

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment The petitioner has filed the present Review Application to review the order, dated 22.09.2014 in C.R.P(MD)No.1692 of 2014. 2. In C.R.P.(MD)No.1692 of 2014 was filed by the respondents herein, who are the landlords of the petition premises. The respondents filed R.C.O.P.NO.240 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town, for eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition premises on the ground of wilful default. Along with RCOP, the respondents have also filed I.A.No.252 of 2013, under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, for a direction to the petitioner to pay or deposit of arrears of rent due in respect of the petition mentioned properties and for a direction to the petitioner to continue to pay subsequently monthly rent and failing which, stop all further proceedings and pass orders evicting the petitioners in possession of building. 3. Notice was ordered to the petitioner and served on him for the hearing on 22.10.2013. On that date there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner either in person or through counsel. Therefore, the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town, set ex-parte and allowed I.A.No.252 of 2013 and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days from 22.10.2013. 4. The respondents filed C.R.P.No.1692 of 2014 to direct the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town to pass an order of eviction in R.C.O.P.No.240 of 2013. The respondents contended that the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town failed to pass consequential order under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. 5. The petitioner contended that he had already filed two applications to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 22.10.2013 and application to set aside the ex-parte order. 6. This Court considering the Section 11(1) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 by the order dated 22.09.2014 directed the learned District Munsif, to consider the I.A.No.252 of 2013 and pass final orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 7. The petitioner has filed the present review application to review the said order dated 22.09.2014. 8. 7. The petitioner has filed the present review application to review the said order dated 22.09.2014. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the C.R.P(MD)No.1692 of 2014 is not maintainable under Article 227 of Constitution of India against order under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Lease and Rent Control Act and suffers from errors as two applications filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the petition and to set aside ex-parte order and was not considered by this Court. 9. I have carefully considered the materials on record and arguments of counsel for petitioner. 10. This Court has power of superintendents over all the subordinate Courts and Tribunal within the jurisdiction. This Court has power of judicial review and can interfere, when the Subordinate Courts failed to exercise the power or error apparent on the face of record. 11. From the order of Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town dated 22.10.2013 it is seen that the Learned Principal District Munsif set the petitioner as ex-parte and directed him to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days from 22.10.2013. No further order was passed. In that circumstances, this Court directed the learned Judge to consider I.A.No.252 of 2013 on merits and pass final orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There is no error in the said order. 12. It is well settled principle of law that the review cannot be re-hearing. The Court should not encourage filing of appeal in the guise of Review Application. The scope of Review Application was considered by the Honourable Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2000 (6) SCC 224 [Lilli Thomas and Others Vs. Union of India and Others]. In paragraph 52 of the said Judgment, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: "52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [ 1971 (3) SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273 ] held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [ 1971 (3) SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273 ] held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. ....." (emphasis supplied) 13. The Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in 2014 (3) TLNJ 245 (Civil) [M.Jai Kavitha Vs. The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Chennai - 1 and others], in which I was a party, has considered the scope of judicial review, wherein, the decision of the Honourable Apex Court was noted with approval and in paragraph No.9 of the said Judgment, it has been held as follows:- "9. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC can be exercised by a court of law, if the order in question comprises a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Once an order is pronounced, it should not be altered, unless there is an apparent error. Law is well settled that erroneous finding is not a ground for review, so also improper consideration for that matter. In review application, the court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment and the said application cannot be treated as an appeal. This position has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India [ 2000 (6) SCC 224 ]. In review application, the court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment and the said application cannot be treated as an appeal. This position has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India [ 2000 (6) SCC 224 ]. Therefore, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of record, we are not inclined to interfere with the order in question, except to the extent of deleting of the portions in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned order, with which the applicant is concerned as to having an impact on the proceedings pending before the tribunal, as stated in the foregoing paragraph." (emphasis supplied) 14. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the considered view that the earlier order of this Court can be reconsidered only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and in that event, the said error can be rectified, otherwise, a Review Application is not at all maintainable. In the present case on hand, the Review Applicant failed to raise any ground, reason or cause warranting interference at the hands of this Court. The order, dated 22.09.2014 C.R.P.No.1692 of 2014 will not be bar to the petitioner to agitate all the grounds raised in the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order and application to set aside the ex-parte order. 15. For the reasons stated above, I hold that Review Application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.