M/S I Wish Retail (Partnership ... vs Mr. Rajkumar Salgia
2022 Latest Caselaw 7672 MP

                                 1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT INDORE
                             BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                       ON THE 13th JUNE, 2022

                 REVIEW PETITION No. 259 of 2022

     Between:-

     M/S I WISH RETAIL (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) THROUGH PARTNER
     HARSH DHAKAD S/O SHRI V.S. DHAKAD 501, PRINCESS
     EMPIRE, RACE COURSE ROAD, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONER

     (BY SHRI V.K. JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ATUL KUMAR
     GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

     AND

   MR. RAJKUMAR SALGIA S/O LATE RAJMLAJI SALGIA, AGED
1. ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS VIRASAT, 28/1-4,
   AMARSINGH MARG, FREEGANJ, (MADHYA PRADESH)

     HARSH DHAKAD S/O SHIV V.S. DHAKAD, AGED ABOUT 44
2.
     YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 501, PRINCESS EMPIRE,
     RACE COURSE ROAD, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                                     2




                              ORDER

01. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 11/01/2022 passed in Civil Revision No.474/2021 whereby the revision preferred by petitioners has been dismissed.

02. The instant petition has been filed on the ground that despite recording of finding in the order that Rent Controlling Act does not designate or constitute civil/specific Court or Forum to try disputes the in such cases land-lord tenant disputes are arbitrable, the land-lord tenant dispute has been held to be non-arbitrable. The order contemplates Civil Court as Special Court constituted under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 to adjudicate upon the disputes between land-lord and tenant whereas there is no such constitution under the Act conferring special powers on Civil Court. The Civil Courts are not conferred any special powers nor are designated as Special Court under the Act, 1961 to be referred to as Special/Specific Courts. The Rent Controlling Authority is empowered only under Chapter III-A of the Act to adjudicate the matters specified therein and the respondent does not fall in the ambit of that definition The instant dispute is exclusively covered by the Act, 1961 and arbitration proceedings can be conducted within the provisions of the same.

03. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex

Court in Natraj Sudio vs. Navrag Sudio (1981) 1 SCC 529, Olympus Super Structures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena Vijay Khetan and others (1999) 5 SCC 651, Shriman Rao vs. Suryanarayan Murti AIR 1954 Madras 340, Ashok Kumar Shiv Prasad Verma vs. Baboolal 1998 (1) MPLJ 461(FB). It is also submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidya Drolia and others vs. Durga Trading Corporation 2021 (2) SCC 1 and Suresh Shah vs. Hepad Techonology 2021 (1) SCC 529 have not been interpreted in true scene.

04. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.

05. The order dated 11/01/2022 in the Civil Revision has been passed on merits of the case upon taking into consideration the submissions as had been advanced by the petitioners. The petitioners had contended that the dispute between the parties is arbitrable hence the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC ought to be allowed and plaint be rejected. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Apex Court in Vidhya Drolia (Supra) and Suresh Shah (Supra).

06. Upon considering the submissions of the petitioners and interpreting the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, the order under review was passed. The order being an order on merits cannot be said to be an order in which there is any error or mistake apparent on face of the record. It is well settled that merely because the interpretation as had been put-forth had not been accepted the same would not a ground for review.

07. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715 in which it was held in paragraph No.9 as

under :-

"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 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 limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

08. The reliance placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in Natraj Sudio (Supra) is of no avail to the petitioners as the said decision was rendered while interpreting the Bombay Rent Act. The decision in Olympus Super Structures Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) was in respect of a suit for specific performance of contract and not in an eviction suit. The decision in Shriman Rao (Supra) was in respect of creation of separate Courts. In Ashok Kumar Shiv Prasad Sharma (Surpa), the question for consideration was the choice of land-lord covered under Section 23-J of the Act, 1961 whether to approach the Civil Court or the Rent Controlling Authority for seeking relief under

the Act. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are hence distinguishable on facts and the preposition of lay down thereunder and are not applicable to the present matter.

09. Thus, I do not find any ground to exercise review jurisdiction in the present matter. Petition hence fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Pranay Verma) Judge

Aiyer* Digitally signed by JAGDISHAN AIYER Date: 2022.06.14 18:47:41 +05'30'