Subhash Kapoor (Dead) vs Rohit Hari

Lok Pal Singh, J

Review application MCC no. 551 of 2019 has been filed by the writ petitioner / review applicant seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 passed by this Court.

The writ petitioner, who is tenant in the accommodation in dispute, has filed the writ petition against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2015, passed by learned Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as also against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2016, passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length on review application.

During the course of argument of the writ petition, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner made a statement at Bar that since the Court is not convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below against the petitioner, therefore, reasonable time be granted to the petitioner so that he may make arrangement to find out alternate accommodation. The writ petition was disposed of on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:

"(i) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial court on or before 16.06.2019 to the effect that he shall vacate the premises in question on or before 16.05.2021 and shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord.

(ii) The petitioner shall undertake to pay the entire arrears of rent, if any, to the landlord within a period of two months from today.

(iii) The petitioner shall continue to pay the rent for the use and occupation of the premises in question on each succeeding month till vacation of the accommodation on 7th day of each month.

(iv) The petitioner shall not induct any other person in the premises in question.

(v) In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the petitioner shall not be entitled to continue in the premises in question up to 16.05.2021 and the decree shall be executed forthwith.

Review application has been filed on the ground that before filing the release application against the tenant-petitioner, the landlord-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of rent and ejection, but the trial court did not find favour with the landlord-respondent and dismissed the suit. It was held that no landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties. The civil revision pending too was dismissed in default.

The landlord-respondent has filed its objection to the review application stating therein that concurrent findings of facts were recorded by the courts below against the petitioner and during the course of argument of the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement at Bar that some time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. It is contended that on the statement so made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of with the terms and conditions aforementioned.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no mistake apparent on the face of record in the judgment sought to be reviewed.

A perusal of the review application would reveal that the petitioner could not point out any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment sought to be reviewed. It is settled position in law that the review court cannot hear the matter de novo. The scope of review is limited that too only in the situation when there is some error apparent on the face of record.

9) On a perusal of the judgment sought to be reviewed and the material available on record and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties as the review applicant could not point out any error apparent on the face of record, this Court does not find any ground to review the impugned judgment and order. The review application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

10) In the judgment under review, time was granted to the writ petitioner / review applicant to vacate the premises in question on or before 16.05.2021. Further, the writ petitioner / review application was directed to comply with the other conditions made in the judgment and order passed by this Court. Writ petitioner / review applicant was also directed to submit an undertaking before the trial court on or before 16.06.2019. Learned counsel for the parties have apprised this Court that the writ petitioner did not file the undertaking as directed by this Court. Having considered the facts and situation that the writ petitioner has filed the review application, therefore, he could not file the undertaking before the court below, purely in the interest of justice, time to file the undertaking by the writ petitioner is extended for a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by him. No order as to costs.