The main legal point established in the judgment is the inherent power of the court to review its order to prevent miscarriage of justice, but such review must be filed within the prescribed time and must present new and important evidence.

( 1 ) THE tenant-petitioner has filed I. A. V and wants the Court-to consider the subsequent events and consider if the respondent has failed to establish his reasonable and bonafrde need treating the application as an i. A. in the petition or a C. P. and recall the order. The respondent-landlord opposed this application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has also filed IAs VII, VIII and IX under O. 47, R. 2 read with S. 151 CPC. for a direction to the respondents or his sons to produce the sale deeds referred to therein under which properties are acquired subsequent to the respondent applying for possession of the property leased and to receive the same as additional evidence.

( 3 ) I. A. X is an application for condoning the delay in filing I. A. V treating it as one filed under O. 47, R. 1 CPC. In the affidavit in" support of this application, the petitioner has stated that the reasons for the delay have already been set out in the affidavit supporting I. A. V. The respondent in his objection has stated that the application filed for recalling the order cannot be treated as an application under O. 47, R 1 CPC. The explanations given are not true and the petitioner was aware of these transactions all along It is also contended that the application filed after 166 days is clearly barred by time and is not maintainable.

( 4 ) IN I. As VII, VIII and IX the petitioner wants the respondent and his three sons to produce the sale deeds evidencing acquisition of properties subsequent to the respondent applying for the recovery of possession and before the order was made on 23-6-1980. The existence of these sale deeds is not disputed by the respondent but is admitted by him. But the dispute between the parties is, according to the petitioner, it is the respondent who has acquired these properties while according to the respondent it is his sons who have acquired these properties and these properties do not belong to him The petitioner has also p oduced certified copier, of the sale deeds. Thrrefore it is not necessary to look into the original sale deeds to appreciate the contentions of the parties. I. As vii, VIII and IX are therefore dismissed.

( 5 ) SRI Javali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that by the order made on 23-6-1980, the dispute of controversy between the parties is not completely resolved and the 'lis pends' till the respondent is given relief by putting him in possession of the properties, pursuant to the order and there fore, the Court can take into consideration all the events happening after the institution of the proceedings till the order is satisfied and determine the respondent's right for possession under S. 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). According to him, as long as the order for possession is not executed and his client continues in possession, the 'lis pends' and it is open for the Court to annul or revise the order already made and refuse the relief of possession, if he is able to satisfy the Court that the respondent is not entitled to recover possession under S. 21 (h) and placed reliance on Venkateswarulu v. Motor and General traders (1 ). The respondent, according to him, has acquired properties in the name of his three sons and these properties are available for him for occupation and he is therefore not entitled for the recovery of possession of the property leased. to his client.

( 6 ) SRI Byra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the controversy or the dispute between the parties was finally decided on 23-6-1980 and the contention that the 'lis pends' till the order is executed is unsustainable in law. He maintained that the order could have been annulled, varied or modified either in an appeal by a superior Court or by this Court on an application for review of the order and this not having been done, the order has become final and binding on the parties and this application is not maintainable. H