$~14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 19th April, 2018
+ R.C. REV. 374/2015
VINOD KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Mr.
Vidit Gupta & Mr. Prakash
Pandey, Advs.
versus
AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Mr. Sanjay
Gupta & Mr. Ajay Pratap
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
Review Petition No. 307/2016
1. The applicant in the review petition had instituted a case (E No. 105/2013) on 19.03.2011 in the court of rent controller seeking an order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the opposite party (non-applicants) in respect of premises described as shop at ground floor forming part of property no. 4756/4758, Ward No. 3, Laxmi Bazar, Cloth Market, Delhi -110006. On the application of the non-applicants (the tenants), leave to defend was granted and, thereafter, the case went to trial. On the basis of evidence adduced, the rent controller decided the case by judgment dated 27.05.2015 RC Rev. 374/2015 Page 1 of 6 granting an order of eviction holding, inter alia, that the applicant (the landlord) had proved the case for eviction on the ground of bona fide need for setting up the business of his wife Vandana Singhal in the name and style of M/s Sidhant Textiles, it at that stage being run from premises taken on rent from a firm known as M/s Radha Textiles.
2. The eviction order granted by judgment dated 27.05.2015 was challenged by the tenants by RC. Rev. 374/2015. The said revision petition was heard by a learned single judge (Indermeet Kaur, J) of this Court, and decided by a detailed order dated 20.05.2016. The Court found it difficult to believe the evidence with regard to the averment that the proprietary firm Sidhant Textiles of the wife of the applicant was functional from a tenanted premises taken from Radha Textiles, a number of deficiencies in the evidence - oral and documentary, having been highlighted. Against this backdrop, the Court held that the trial court did not consider the evidence in the correct perspective and the findings returned were perverse, the applicant (landlord) having not proved that the need was bona fide. With this conclusion reached, the eviction order passed by the rent controller on 27.05.2015 was set aside and the eviction petition of the applicant was dismissed.
3. The review petition at hand was submitted on 01.07.2016 and had come before the learned single judge who had decided the revision petition on 20.05.2016. It has remained pending. The learned single judge who had passed the order, of which review is sought, has demitted office on reaching the age of retirement and, thus, the matter has come up before this Court.
RC Rev. 374/2015 Page 2 of 64. The learned counsel for the applicant argued at length in the endeavour to submit that the rent controller had considered the evidence adduced in proper perspective and that the reasoning set out in the judgment of the court below was not appreciated in correct light and further that the findings returned by the learned single judge in the order whereby the eviction petition was dismissed are not borne out from the pleadings or the evidence that had been adduced.
5. In the considered view of this court, the endeavour of the applicant is actually to seek a rehearing of the matter which is not permissible in the review jurisdiction. In this context, it is necessary at this stage to refer to the settled law on the subject.
6. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented By The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Supreme Court observed thus:-
" ...What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error, apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an RC Rev. 374/2015 Page 3 of 6 appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out...".
(emphasis supplied)
7. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others (1979) 4 SCC 389 the circumspection with which the power of review is to be exercised was delineated in the following words:-
".....there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
(emphasis supplied) RC Rev. 374/2015 Page 4 of 6
8. The above noted observations in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma (supra) were reiterated in Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 170 and again in Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 Supreme Court cases 715 where it was observed:-
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the 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 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(emphasis supplied)
9. The review petition before this Court is not based on discovery of any new matter or evidence. Review is sought on the ground of mistake or error apparent in the decision rendered by the learned single judge. In this context, the following observations in ruling of the Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another Civil Appeal No. 1694 OF 2006 are also germane:-
15.The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts RC Rev. 374/2015 Page 5 of 6 or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is clear that in order to be termed an error "apparent on face of record" the error must be patent or self-evident and certainly not dependent on elaborate process of reasoning for it to be demonstrated or highlighted.
11. The grounds on which the present review application has been filed are, thus, impermissible. They are couched in the form of a request for review, but really speaking, seek rehearing and thus in the nature of appeal in disguise which is not permissible.
12. The review petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 19, 2018 nk RC Rev. 374/2015 Page 6 of 6