1. This review petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 114 C.P.C seeking to review the order dated 18/08/2011 where under and whereby this Court dismissed the Civil Revision confirming the judgment dated 22/03/2011 passed in R.A. No.157/2010 by the Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad ( For Brevity, ‘the appellate authority’) and as such the order dated 26/04/2010 passed in R.C No.50 of 2008 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad ( For brevity, ‘The Rent Controller’).

2. Whereas the Review Petitioner is the Petitioner, the first Respondent is the Respondent in R.C.No.50/2008. For the sake of convenience, I refer them as arrayed in R.C. 50.2008.

3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that thw impugned order is not in accordance with law as it is hit by doctrine of per incuriam in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case between Sunita Rani and other Vs Chand and other1.His main submission is that once an application filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant is dismissed, the tenant enjoys all the protections followed by the Rent Control Act including the one against enhancement of rent. His main submission is that since the eviction petition filed by the landlord is dismissed. The claim for enhancement of rent ought to have been rejected. It is also his submission that he could not cite the above referred decision before the Court while arguing the matter. He has relied on a decision of this Court in case between D. Sanjeeva Rao Vs M. Sankara Ratnamaiah2 and also on a decision in case between Gangamma Vs Venkanna3.. He has also relied on a judgement of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.2271/2010 raised out of a S.L.P. (Criminal) No.7615/2009 and also in an order of this in Civil Revision Petition No.129/2003 incase between Abdul Rehman Vs Saraswathi Prasad Singh and also on a decision of the Apex Court in cases between Government of A.P. and another Vs B. Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) by LRs and other4

4. Sri. K. Mohan, learned counsel for the resp0ndetns herein submits that merely on the ground of non citing of certain decisions a review petition is not maintainable and in support of his contentions, he has relied on a decision of this Court in case between Mohd. Yousuf Vs Director General of Fire Services, A.P., Hyderabad and others5

5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order requires review?

6. As seen from the grounds of Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner has referred to the decision of Sunita Rani(1st Supra) as one of the grounds in the Civil Revision Petition. Thus, it is clear that though the learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited the said decision at the time of his arguments, but however the said decision has been referred in the grounds of Revision itself. It is not in dispute that the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein seems to have been dismissed. Whether it was dismissed prior to the initiation of the petition for enhancement of rent or subsequently is the point that arose for consideration in the Revision. In the case of Mod. Yousuf (5th supra) relied upon by Sri. K.Mohan

Learned counsel for the respondents herein, the petitioner therein was appointed as a Fireman and he was dismissed from service on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty for certain period. When he approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and therefore set aside the dismissal order. Assailing the said order of the Tribunal, the department preferred Writ Petition No.3478/2004, then this Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the conduct of the petitioner in not intimating the department about his admission in the Hospital due to his sickness was not justifiable and on this ground and on some other grounds, the Writ Petition was allowed. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Review Petition