S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In this review petition following main points have been argued by learned counsel for the tenant/applicant. 1. Judgment was delivered after three months and three days from reserving the same and it was in violation of directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3173.
(2.) LOWER appellate court had appointed an advocate commissioner who gave the report and against the said report objections had been filed by the tenant but the same were not decided/considered. Different versions were given by the landlady and her sons in respect of need of the sons and there were great variations in the said versions. An offer of part release made by the tenant was not considered by the lower appellate court or this Court. As far as the judgment of Supreme Court in Anil Rai is concerned, there can not be two opinions that judgment must be delivered quickly. However, some time due to heavy pressure of work which is heavier on the judges of this Court than the judges of other High Courts some delay takes place. As far as the question of filing objections against report of the advocate Commissioner is concerned, it has not been pointed out that which portion of report of the advocate commissioner against which objections were filed and not decided affected either the judgment of the lower appellate Court or this Court. In this scenario this objection is also not of much force. As far as in-consistency in the cases pleaded by the landlady and taken by her different sons in their affidavits is concerned, my judgment dated 23.01.2009 is not based upon any such inconsistent plea. Even though it was pleaded by the landlady that only one of her sons was working in Shakti Nagar still I held that two of her sons were working there. Even if there was some variance still strict principles of C.P.C. are not applicable to release applications under Section 21 of U.P. Act no.13 of 1972. Matter of release has been decided by me in favour of landlady taking the narrower case and not wider case initially pleaded by the landlady. In respect of offer of part release or order of part release the same has been considered by me in my judgment. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to review my judgment dated 23.01.2009. In the beginning learned counsel for the landlord had raised a preliminary question that in pursuance of my judgment dated 23.01.09 an undertaking had been filed before the Prescribed Authority and an amount of Rs. 6000/- had also been deposited, hence review petition was not maintainable as in the undertaking the only right reserved was of filing appeal before Supreme Court. Remedy under Article 226/227 of Court of India which includes right to file review petition is constitutional remedy and it can not be curtailed by filing undertaking etc. So in my opinion the undertaking filed by the tenant and the deposit of the amount does prevent him from filing review petition. On the other hand if without filing undertaking and without depositing the amount this review petition had been filed then possibly it would not have been entertained. Accordingly, preliminary objection is overruled. However, the review application is dismissed on the ground that no ground for review has been made out.;