A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is to review an order passed by C. Sriramulu J. , (since retired on 16-10-1987) in rent revision case on October 15, 1987.

( 2 ) THE review petitioners are the tenants who preferred revision against the eviction order passed by the Rent Court which was confirmed on appeal.

( 3 ) THE respondent landlord had preferred an eviction petition on twin grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises for a business to be commenced. The rent Court ordered eviction on both the grounds. On apptal, however, wilful default in payment of rent was not upheld but on the ground of bonafide requirement, eviction was confirmed. The tenants revision in this Court was dismissed on the ground that no interference is warranted against the concurrent finding of the two Courts below.

( 4 ) SINCE the arguments were at first addressed on the scope of review, the same be advened to. Relying on a decision of this court as well as a decision of the Madras High Court, it is argued by Sri Y. Sivarama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioners, that when once the review petition is admitted, in other words the rule is made absolute, then the entire revision could be heard on its merits in which case it may result in ths repetition of the former decree or order or in some variation of it. In either case the whole matter gets reopened and there will be a fresh decree or order.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India while relying on its earlier decision in Sow Chandra Kanta vs. Sheik Habib wherein it is held. "a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake of like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. . . . . . The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. "held :"a review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. "in Nalesa Naicker vs. Sambanda Chettiar, the learned single Judge of madras High Court held:"where however the legal position is clearly established by a well known authority and by some unfortunate oversight the Judge has gone wrong by the omission of those concerned to draw his attention to the authority, it may in a proper case be a ground for review coming within the category of an error apparent on the face of the record". A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sigappiachi vs. Palaniappa held :"awarding of interest in a decree at the rate of higher than allowed by Section 34 of the Code is an error apparent on the face of the record. "in Subrahmany vs. Govindasami a learned single Judge of the Madras high Court, after referring inter alia to a decision in Gangaraju vs. Venkata rayulu Naidu wherein it is held : "it seems to me that this contention must fail in as much as rule 8 of 0. 47 clearly lays it down that when the Court grants an application for. review it may at once "rehear the case". "that surely means that it may hear the case in full and deal with every point which it is necessary to consider before passing a fresh order. " held:"in my view, the words of 0. 47 Rule 8, namely "may at once rehear the case or make such order in regard to the rehearing as it thinks fit" are rather wide. . . . . . The aforesaid words have been designedly used by the Legislature conferring a discretionary jurisdiction on a court directing a rehearing of a concluded trial. Of course, if the Court allowing a review petition does not restrict the scope of the enquiry, it may reasonably be held that it intended to reopen the entire case. "in Mallikarjunappa vs. Rudrasetti a Division Bench of this Court, while referring to an ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document