- (1.) B. K. Singh, J. Applicant, who had preferred writ petition No. 74 (R/c) of 1996 has applied for review of my judgment dated 6-2-1997.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel of the applicant. The learned counsel has submitted that the owner landlord, during the course of the litigation in the lower courts had got possession over eight accommodations. This was a crucial circumstance which has not been taken into consideration while determining the question of hardship be tween the opposite party No. 3 and the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the case reported in 1981 (3) S. C. C. page 36 was not taken into consideration while determining the bonafide need for the accommodation. The learned counsel then submitted that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down that concurrent findings can be looked into if the same are manifestly unjust. So this Court can exercise its in herent power to remedy the injury caused to the applicant. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1985 SC 207: Mis. Variety Emporium v. VR. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interferred on the ground that if finding is shown to be manifestly unjust then it is not only the right but the duty of the "hon'ble Supreme Court to remedy in justice. So this Court should review its judg ment. I have considered the above submis sions of the learned counsel of the ap plicant. Review petition has a very limited scope. The power to review granted to the court under Order XLVII, Rule 1 C. P. C. is confined to 'some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby the case can be re-heard and a fresh decision passed. A review will not be used as a tool to grant the relief which has not been found worthy of being granted in the main peti tion.
(3.) HERE in this case the dispute is be tween landlord and tenant in respect of release of an accommodation in the tenancy of the applicant. Judging the respective cases of the applicant and the landlord/op posite party No. 3 the Prescribed Authority had allowed the release application. The Prescribed Authority has considered the evidence and also the point urged by the learned counsel of the applicant as to whether the accommodations released in favour of the opposite party No. 3 were fit for the Chamber of Lawyer son. The Prescribed Authority did not agree that those accommodations were worthy of being used as Lawyer's Chamber. When the said plea of the applicant was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Court and the finding on the question of bonafide need as well as hardship have gone against the applicant, who has his own accommodation on the same road then I have to say. . . . . . . that those findings of fact can not be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. On specific issue of the jurisdiction of this Court in such matters the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not possible. I have referred to those decisions in my judgment. I do not feel that my judgment suffers from any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. As regards taking into consideration the referred Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision is concerned that also does not help the applicant at this stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Variety Emporium v. V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina (Supra) has said that it can correct the error. That however, does not, in the face of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied in my judgment, leave any option to this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Ar ticle 226of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, of the view that legally it is not possible to exercise review power. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. Review Petition dismissed. .;