Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents on this application seeking review of an order dismissing appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The order sought to be reviewed was rendered by this Court on 05.02.2018. The facts of the litigation are explicitly stated therein.

3. The Review Petitioner - Smt. Pushpa Sharma was the owner of a piece of land and building. That was sold by her to the Respondents. Ultimately, litigation ensued as between them. Simultaneously, a litigation was initiated by Dr. Saroj Sharma, husband of the review petitioner.

4. The plea projected in this review petition is that the Rent Control Tribunal had dismissed review petitioner's statutory appeal on the ground of delay and it is an eminently fit case where that order should be vacated and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. We are not impressed to accept this contention. The first and foremost reason which we see as against the review petitioner's plea is that this Court was dealing with applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and after noticing th