The High Court has inherent power to review its own order passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, being a court of record and plenary jurisdiction. This power can be exercised on grounds analogous to those mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

( 1 ) THIS order of mine disposes of an objection of preliminary nature raised by counsel for the respondent to the A maintainability of this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 etc. of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ).

( 2 ) THE facts germane to the decision of the question raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in brief are that. B eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises viz. the first floor of property No. 16, Friends Colony. New Delhi, by the respondent-landlady on the ground of bonafide requirement for herself and members of her family falling under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act ) read with Section 25b thereof. The eviction petition was contested by the petitioner but eventually an order of eviction was made by an Additional Rent Controller on 13th October 1980 and the petitioner was directed to surrender vacant possession of. the premises in question within six months thereof. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined in Section 25b (8) of the Act for setting aside the order of eviction, It was heard anddismissed by M. L. Jam, J. vide order dated 1st June 1984. This review petition has been made by the petitioner against the said order on the ground that it suffers from errors of law and fact apparent on the face of the record.

( 3 ) THE submission made by Mr. Madan Bhatia, the learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset is that this Court has no power to review its own order passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is a special jurisdiction conferred by the Act itself) in the absence of any statutory power to that effect. He has canvassed with considerable fervour that power to review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. In other words, there is no inherent power of review in any authority whether acting judicially or quasi-judicially and that power is required to be conferred specifically under the statute. Hence the Court cannot review its judgment unless the statute provides a remedy by way of review except in very special circumstances, e. g. where it passed an order inadvertently or where the order suffered from any clerical error or accidental commission.

( 4 ) RELIANCE is placed by the learned counsel the respondent on para 556 of Halsbury s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 26, which bears the caption "amendment after entry of judgment or order". Deep Chand and another v. Additional Director, Consolidation of holdings, Punjab. Jullundur and another, 1964 PLR 318 (FB) (1), Patel Narshi Thakreshi and others v. Pradhumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 197u SC 1273 (2), P. L. Morada, Major (Retired), v. S. D. Bakshi, 1973 Rent Control Journal 692 (3), D. N. Roy and S. K. Banerje and others v. State of Bihar and Orissa, 1971 (2) SCR 522 (4) and State, of Assam and another v. J. . N. Roy Biswas, 1976 (2) SCR 128 (6) and Ram Kumar v. Harish Kumar, 1968 DLT 74 (6 ). The contention raised concisely and precisely is that the High Court derives its power of revision by virtue of Section 25b (8) of the Act which is a self-contained enactment and as such it would not be permissible to enlarge the scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court on general principles of law when it is specifically circumscribed by the statute itself. In other word s. the legislature would have conferred the power of review also, had it so wanted and omission thereof in the Act is deliberate and significant. Section 25b (8) reads asunder :.

"no appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possesion of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section : Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law