Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 13 (ALL)

RAMESHWAR DAYAL v. HARENDRA RAKHAN KATIYAR

2018-01-03

MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mahindra Dayal, J. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the review-petitioner, today in Court, is taken on record. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The review-petitioner has sought review of the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 68 (RC) of 1996, whereby the writ petition filed by the opposite party was allowed and the order dated 14.05.1996, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri was set aside. 4. The opposite party filed an application for release under Section 21(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the review-petitioner, which was registered as Rent Control Case No. 4 of 1991. This application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the need of the landlord was neither bona fide nor genuine. The opposite party feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dismissing his application for release, preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was allowed and the release application was allowed. The review-petitioner, being tenant in the aforesaid premises, preferred Writ Petition No. 68 (RC) of 1996. This writ petition has been allowed and the order of the appellate Court dated 14.05.1996 was set aside. This Court, while allowing the writ petition, observed that the learned appellate Court did not properly consider the question of bona fide and genuine need. This Court was of the opinion that the learned appellate Court committed manifest error of law in holding that the need of the landlord was genuine. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the review-petitioner that various case laws were cited by the review-petitioner before the Court at the time of hearing, but neither those case laws were considered nor were referred in the judgment. The writ court also committed manifest error of law in considering the bona fide need of both the parties while under the provisions of Section 21(a) of the Rent Control Act, the need of only landlord is to be considered. This is error apparent on the face of the record, which attracts the grounds for review of the judgment. It has also been submitted that the landlord is a 90 years old person and the tenant is enjoying the premises without paying the rent to the landlord. 6. This is error apparent on the face of the record, which attracts the grounds for review of the judgment. It has also been submitted that the landlord is a 90 years old person and the tenant is enjoying the premises without paying the rent to the landlord. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has on the other hand submitted that so far as the question of consideration of the case laws cited by the review-petitioner is concerned, the same is not a ground for review. The Court is not obliged to refer every case law cited by the parties. Learned counsel has referred to the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 to show that relevant case laws cited by the review-petitioner have been referred and discussed in the judgment. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the need of only landlord has been considered and it has been found that the learned appellate Court did not correctly consider the question of bona fide need. This Court while allowing the writ petition was of the view that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord was correct and the appellate Court committed manifest error of law in considering the bona fide need of the landlord. It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the review petitioner has failed to show any of the grounds for review of the judgment. The scope of review is very limited. The Court can interfere and exercise the powers of review only if it is found that there is any error apparent on the face of the record or there is discovery of any new and important fact, which was not in the knowledge of the review-petitioner at the time of final judgment. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and as such the review petition lacks merits and should be dismissed. 7. I have carefully gone through the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 68 (R/C) of 1996, in which, the Hon'ble Judge has considered the matter in detail and has also considered the relevant case laws cited by the parties. 7. I have carefully gone through the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 68 (R/C) of 1996, in which, the Hon'ble Judge has considered the matter in detail and has also considered the relevant case laws cited by the parties. It has been concluded by the Court that the question of bona fide need and relative hardship was not considered at all by the appellate Court. This Court also observed that there was no occasion for the appellate Court to have reversed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. This observation has been made by this Court keeping in view the material available on record. This cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. The scope of review does not permit the Court to enter into merits of the case and re-appreciate the facts and the law. The power of review can be exercised only in very exceptional cases, where it shown that there is error apparent on the face of the record, but in the present case, I do not find any such error in the judgment passed by this Court. If the tenant is not paying the rent to the landlord, the review-petitioner has right to terminate the tenancy and initiate proceedings for his eviction, but so far as the present case is concerned, I do not find any merit in this review-petition. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the review petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.