Point of Law: Rent control – Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

ORDER :

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Seeking review of the judgment in W.P(C). No.28080 of 2019 dated 19.12.2019, instant review petition is filed.

2. Short facts leading to filing of review petition are as under:

Review petitioner is the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 28080 of 2019, which was dismissed by judgment dated 19.12.2019. Review petitioner is the tenant of a premises. He has approached this Court challenging Exhibit-P9 notice dated 04.10.2019 issued by Thrissur Corporation, respondent No.1, calling upon the owner of the building to demolish the unauthorized construction, within a period of 14 days, failing which, it was indicated that demolition will be done by the department at the cost of landlord and prosecution steps will be taken for non-compliance of the directions. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the building. According to the review petitioner, he is running a hotel by name “Doublex”, in the building, along with his brother. A Rent Control Petition has been filed by the landlord, claiming arrears of rent, and that he has also filed a suit, O.S. No.6143/2006, before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, to restrain the review petitioner from making any construction in the rented building.

3. Adverting to the rival submissions, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court heard the parties at length, and by judgment dated 19.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.28080 of 2019, ordered as under:

“5. The only question to be considered is whether Ext.P9 suffers from any infirmity and whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus or be issued with a D & O licence. As far as the claim for D & O licence is concerned, the issue had become final in the light of the judgment dated 2/11/2018 in WP(C) No.12446/2018 and the further direction of the Corporation as per order dated 3/3/2019. Though writ petition was filed challenging the same, the same came to be dismissed by order dated 24/9/2019 in WP(C) No. 13230/2019. Therefore, no such direction can be issued.

6. With reference to Ext.P9, admittedly the construction made is unauthorised. The petitioner has a case that the construction was made by the landlord. The landlord has no such case. Learned counsel appearing for Thrissur Corporation submitted that the construction made is totally unauthorised and it is in the said circumstances that direction had been issued to demolish the structure. The contention that the landlord himself had made the construction cannot be sustained. Landlord had approached the Civil Court seeking an injunction to restrain the tenant from making illegal construction and there is an interim order of injunction as well. Under such circumstance, when Corporation had taken action to demolish the unauthorised structures, there is no reason why the writ petition should be entertained. That apart, this Court in WA No.844/2019 having taken note of the order dated 15/3/2018 observed that the Municipality should implement the said order of demolition of the unauthorised structure unless order is varied or modified by a competent authority. Petitioner had sufficient time to challenge the order dated 15/3/2018. But he did not do so and Ext.P9 order is only a continuation of the earlier order passed for demolition of the structure. Under such circumstance, when there is no illegality in the order passed by the Thrissur Corporation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to seek regularization of the construction. Learned counsel for the appellant however sought time for filing an application for regularisation. According to him, though the petitioner is a tenant, he can also seek for regularising the unauthorised construction. From the facts of the case, we do not think it that the tenant is entitled to seek such a relief. Even otherwise, no such claim had been made in the writ petition. No tenant is entitled to pull down the building of the landlord and make his own construction unless it is permitted by the landlord