P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is posted before the Division Bench pursuant to an order of the learned single Judge who noticed apparent conflict between two decisions of learned single Judges reported in D. Hanumayya vs. G. Radhakrishna murthy and D. Anthoney vs. M. Raja Lakshmi, followed by G. Savitramma vs. T. Sarojini. Accordingly, observing that, "in the said circumstances, I deem this a fit case to be posted before a Division Bench of this Court for an authoritative decision as to whether this Court has the power to review its own orders arising under Section 21 (sic. 22) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act; 1960", directed the office to place the papers before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for orders, for posting the matter before a Division bench.

( 2 ) TENANT is the petitioner whose revision petition was dismissed at the stage of admission on the ground that the respondent-landlord required the demised premises for starting business and that the said requirement is bona fide which was accepted by both the Tribunals and confirmed by the High court in revision. However, the petitioner filed an application for review. Respondents objected that the review petition is not maintainable; inasmuch as the Court has no power.

( 3 ) SRI C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner relying on a decision reported in D. Hanumayya vs. G. Radhakrishna Murthy submits that review petition is maintainable; while the learned Counsel appearing for respondent placed reliance on D. Anthoney vs. M. Raja Lakshmi and g. Savitramma vs. T. Sarojini, in support of his contention that review petition is not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE main objects of the Act are fixation of fair rent, eviction of tenants on certain grounds; recognition of right of tenant to fix rent in certain cases; payment of rent during the pendency of the proceeding for eviction; right of the landlord to recover possession for repairs etc. , and right of tenant to enjoy the amenities without interference by the landlord etc.

( 5 ) WHEN the Rent Controller passes a final order under the Act, appeal is provided against the order of the Rent Controller under Section 20, and further revision to the High Court under Section 22 of the Act. The Act is a self-contained Act and the procedure to be followed by the Tribunals in disposing of certain matters arising under the Act as well as period of limitation is specified in the Act itself. Of course in the absence of an express provision with regard to any procedure in the Act, Tribunals are resorting to application of similar provisions available under the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as they are permitted and imported by this Court through its decisions p. N. Rao vs. K. Radhakrishnamacharyulu. Thus, for instance it is understood that Sections 11, 60, 148, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17, Order 22, order 23, Order 26 etc. , are applicable; while Section 10, Section 151 CPC are not applicable.

( 6 ) NOW the question is whether Section 114 and Order 47 C. P. C. apply.

( 7 ) THE Madras High Court in Subrahmanya vs. Govindasami considering the provisions of Madras Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act which contains similar provisions as A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, held that review of an order passed by the High Court under the provisions of Madras Act is not maintainable. The apex Court in p. N. Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji categorically held as follows:"it is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. "justice Jeevan Reddy, as he then was, in D. Anthoney vs. M. Raja Lakshmi (supra) observed thus:"it is well settled that the right of review is a substantive right and not a mere procedural right; unless conferred by a statute, there is no such inherent power. "later Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, as he then was in Savitramma vs. T. Sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document