- (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The delay in filing the Review Application No.28538 of 2016 in re: Rent Control No.72 of 2014, as referred above, is condoned. Both the aforesaid review petitions have been filed for review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 18.03.2015 in Writ Petition No. 72 (RC) of 2014, whereby the writ petition was dismissed but the order passed by the appellate court was modified to the extent that the tenant-petitioner shall handover the vacant possession of the premises in her occupation to the opposite party-landlord within thirty days from the date of this judgment, who shall demolish the building within one month and shall reconstruct the building within 9 months from the date of demolition and shall offer the ground floor portion to the tenant-petitioner for her occupation in accordance with law. With regard to rate of rent of the newly constructed building, it was provided that the same shall either be settled between the parties or they may approach the Prescribed Authority for fixation of rent. It was also provided that the Prescribed Authority shall after hearing both the parties, determine the cost of construction and fix the monthly rent which shall not be more than 1% of the cost of the construction. It was also provided that if within the aforesaid period the opposite party-landlord fails to get new building constructed and offer it to the tenant-petitioner within the stipulated period, he shall be liable to pay damages to the petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- per month, till the new building is constructed and is delivered to the tenant-petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, who has also sought review, has submitted that the release application was filed by the landlord on the ground that the building was in dilapidated condition and beyond repairs. The landlord had failed to prove the same, but the release application was allowed merely on the ground that since the boundary wall had fallen down and the application for repair was rejected, therefore, the building was in dilapidated condition. In fact, it was well settled from the evidence that the boundary wall was damaged by the landlord himself and there was no evidence on record to the effect that the building was in dilapidated condition. Moreover the boundary wall was not part of the building and merely on the ground that the boundary wall had fallen, the whole building could not be held to be in dilapidated condition. This Court while deciding the writ petition did not take into consideration the aforesaid facts and as such the judgment and order passed by this Court on 18.03.2015 requires review of the matter. In review petition filed by the landlord, it has been stated that this Court while dismissing the writ petition on 18.03.2015 gave certain directions with regard to the demolition and reconstruction of the building. After the order dated 18.03.2015 was passed by this Court, the tenant did not handover the vacant possession within the time prescribed by this Court. The review-petitioner/landlord, therefore, moved an application under Section 23 of the Act No.13 of 1972 and the learned court below was pleased to issue a writ of possession and directed the police of P.S. Naka Hindola to evict the tenant from the premises. The review-petitioner/landlord could get the possession of the building on 30.05.2015 only. Though the tenant had not complied with the orders passed by this Court but he filed a contempt petition before this Court, which was dismissed on 19.02.2016. The tenant while vacating the premises also did not make the payment of dues of electricity and water connection. The tenant is also in possession of her own building. Since the tenant was having a residential building in the city of Lucknow, therefore, under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act, she would be deemed to have ceased to occupy the premises in question. The review-petitioner/landlord had, therefore, moved an application for release under Section 16 of the Act. The landlord/review-petitioner had also taken this ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition and the court below also passed an order releasing the builidng in favour of the review-petitioner/landlord but since the tenant had an alternative accommodation of her own, the order of providing him accommodation after reconstruction was not in accordance with law and is liable to be modified by this Court.
(3.) The law relating to the review of a judgment and order is well settled that a judgment and order cannot be reviewed unless it is found that there is error apparent on the face of record or there is discovery new and important matter, which was not in the knowledge of the party at the time the order was passed. The power of review does not permit the Court to go into the merits of the case and take a different view. In the case Haridas vs. Usha Rani, 2006 AIR(SC) 1634 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Under Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review of an order or judgment has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. It is well settled that rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Since the prayer made by the parties for reviewing the judgment would amount to rehearing of the matter on merits, which is not permissible in law, therefore, both the review petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.;