Lt. Col. Dharam Singh vs Madan Lal Kapoor

M.S. Liberhan, J.—Succinctly, the facts leading to this Review Application are that the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, claiming that he is a specified landlord and does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area of Jalandhar City. The Rent Controller declined the ejectment on the ground that the premises were not bonafidely needed by the landlord, though it was found that he was the specified landlord.

When the Revision Petition came up for hearing against the order of the Rent Controller, it was contended that the landlord was living in a village hardly at a distance of 2 K. Ms. from Jalandhar and his requirement of shifting to Jalandbar is not bonafide particularly when he has entered into an agreement of same with the tenant. On that premises, it was pleaded that the landlord was living in a village 2 K. Ms away and a finding was returned that the landlord did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the locality within the municipal limits of Jalandhar. The ejectment order was passed.

The applicant sought the review of the ejectment order on the ground that on the basis of documents sought to be placed on record, Village Dhannowali was a part of Municipal Corporation. In order to support the contention that village Dhannowali formed a part of Municipal Corporation area of Jalandhar as far back as August 4, 1979, a site plan prepared by the Municipal Committee showing the territorial jurisdiction of the Corporation was placed on record. It was contended that the applicant did not know that Village Dhannowali was a part of Municipal Corporation and consequently could not take this plea either before the Rent Controller or even in this court. It is after the pronouncement of the judgment that the tenant came to know that Village Dhannowali formed part of Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar City. This acquisition of knowledge is a new and important fact and is sufficient to review the order passed. Since an error apparent on the face of the record has crept in as a finding has been returned that Village Dhannowali is not a part of Municipal Corporation which is factually incorrect.

It was urged that this Court has plenary inherent jurisdiction to review its own orders having been passed on erroneous presumptions. The learned counsel for the application relied on Shrimati Ram Piart and Ors. v. Prem Singh 1970(2) R.C. R. 1112 wherein a Division Bench of the this Court observed as follow :--

"Thus power of the High Court, which is a Court of plenary jurisdiction to review an earlier order was fully recongnised, though this power is to be exercised either for the purpose of preventing miscarriage of justice or for correcting above and palpable error committed by it. In the case of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act too there is nothing in Sub-section (5) of Section 15, which takes away this power and consequently the observations of the Supreme Court apply with full force. Observations to the same effect were also made by the learned Judge of this Court in Lal Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. ILR (1970) P & H 177, at page 187. After discussing a number of authorities it was observed as follows :-- "It is not necessary to multiply authorities and the proposition seems to be undisputed that the Court of records and the ultimate Courts of Appeal and revision have inherent powers to act for the securing of the ends of justice. This very principle as regards criminal matters before the High Court in India is embodied in the provisions of section 561-A of the Code in the following terms :-- "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

The learned counsel for the respondent urged that there is no power for review, as the power of review is a statutory power and has to be expressly conferred before the order can be reviewed. He relied on S.J.S. Fernandes Vs. V. Ranganayakulu Chetty, Deep Chand and Anr., v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and Anr. (1964) 66 P.L. R. 318 Molu Ram Amar Singh Vs. Saroj Kumari, It was further urged by the learned counsel that the review can be allowed only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. Where the error has to be found by reasoning or by producing an additional material on the record, it does not constitute a sufficient ground for review. In order to support the contention, he relied on Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, and S.P. Awate Vs. C.P. Fernandes and Another, .

In my considered view, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no jurisdiction vested in this Court to review its own order, cannot be sustained A Division Bench of this Court has held in Shrimati Ram Piari and Ors.'' case (supra) that the orders passed by the High Court can be reviewed. I am bound by that judgment and find no reason to differ with the same. Thus, this Court can review its own order in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction in spite of the fact that there are no specific provisions conferring the power on the High Court to review its own orders passed earlier.

The application is however liable to be rejected on the sole ground that there is no error on the face of the record and none has been pointed out in the course of arguments. The only thrust of the argument by the counsel for the applicant was that in view of the Notification issued, boundaries were extended to village Dhannowali, where admittedly the landlord was residing consequently the village fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation as extended, and this would be a sufficient ground to recall the order, dated September 27, 1989. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, no order of review can be passed The fact assuming to he correct was already there and the tenant with reasonable diligence could have taken the plea and proved that (he landlord owned and possessed other suitable accommodation in the local area. Apart from this though there is no definition of local area but as ordinarily understood, such an extended meaning cannot be given to the term local area which would mean that areas of villages falling within the territorial jurisdiction of a Corporation would become a local area. When a Corporation is constituted under the statute, the state is at liberty to include the villages within the territorial jurisdiction of the Corporation but this act of including the villages in the Corporation area would not render the area of these villages as local area.

Apart from this, allowing the review will give rise to another controversy which has been brought about by filing a counter affidavit that the premises in Village Dhannowali where the landlord is living, is jointly owned by three brothers under a Registered will and if the will is ignored, then it is owned by four brothers. Nothing has been brought on record with respect to the suitability of the accommodation and the extent of ownership and possession of the accommodation with the landlord in Village Dhannowali. If at this stage, review is permitted, all the questions will have to be gone into afresh which would mean re-opening the entire trial. Keeping in view the various disputed questions which would arise if the review is permitted, I do not find any sufficient ground to review the order already passed.

Apart from this, it has been brought to my notice that the tenant has already acquired plot opposite to the demised premises for residence Hence, no ground is made out to review the order, dated September 27, 1989. I find further support for this view from a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Collector of 24 Parganas and Others Vs. Lalith Mohan Mullick and Others, .

The Review Application is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The tenant is, however, allowed two month''s time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that the arrears of rent are paid within a fortnight and an undertaking is filed to the effect that the vacant possession of the demised premises shall be delivered to the landlord on or before the expiry of two months.