KOTHARI, J. - (1.) A quick review petition has been filed by the defendant tenant against the dismissal of his second appeal No. 1/2011 vide judgment & order dated 23.8.2012 by this Court dismissing the second appeal against the concurrent decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity of the respondent-plaintiff-landlord finding that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal of the defendant-tenant.
(2.) THE said judgment of 23 pages dismissing the second appeal at the admission stage, finding that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal is sought to be reviewed on the following contentions raised by Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioner-tenant. (i) That without framing substantial question of law, which according to him did arise in the matter, this Court could hot have held, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai and Anr. vs. Raghunath Prasad - (1981) 3 SCC 103, that where eviction is sought on the ground of personal need of the landlord, the said requirement must continue to exist till final determination of the case, and, therefore, the judgment deserves to be reviewed. (ii) That the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Rakesh Gupta vs. Ahmed Farooq - 1992 (2) RLW 398 dealt with Section 13 of the Act which contained a non obstante clause and, therefore, observations made therein could not have been held to be an obiter in conflict with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava- (2001) 2 SCC 604 in which the Supreme Court has held that the bona fide need of the landlord has to be seen on the date of filing of the eviction suit. (iii) That in second appeal against the eviction decree since the appeal is against the decree only, it could have been either set aside, affirmed or modified and, therefore, in para 19 of the judgment, the additional directions of paying mesne profits, giving of undertaking by tenant within one month to comply with the directions of handing over vacant possession, expeditious execution and liberty to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this court could not have been given. (iv) That in view of admission of the plaintiff landlord's son, Abdul Tahir, for whose need the eviction was sought, that he was Income Tax payer and, therefore, was employed, the findings of the courts below that bona fide need for him existed were perverse and it gave rise to substantial question of law, which has not been framed by this Court in the judgment under review. Having heard the learned counsel at length for about one hour, this Court is of the opinion that the review petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) IT is well settled that mere novelty of argument, repetition of argument and expansion of the same arguments raised, cannot be a ground of review. Unless there is any apparent error on the face of the judgment under review, such a review cannot be sought merely because the judgment is given against the review petitioner. Obviously the remedy lies else where in the form of appeal against the said judgment.;