Deepak Maheshwari, J.

This review petition has been filed by defendant/respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. with a prayer to review the judgment dated 01.03.2016 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil First Appeal No. 437/2011 whereby the appeal filed by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit was allowed and the eviction decree came to be passed in his favour regarding the disputed land.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present review petition are that Navratan Singh Rajpurohit purchased suit land in court auction on 14.1.2008 situated at village Fanda Dakan, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur on which defendant IOCL had set up a petrol pump. Lease of this plot was granted by Collector, Udaipur in favour of Shri Bhanwar Lal against whom, a decree was passed in civil suit No. 35/05. In execution proceeding thereof, the said land was auctioned and was purchased by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit. On 28.2.1997, Bhanwar Lal sub-leased the said land to IOCL for setting up a petrol pump for original period of 15 years, which was liable to be extended for a further period of 15 years in terms of Clause (n) of the lease deed dated 28.2.1997 executed between Bhanwar Lal and IOCL.

3. After purchase of the said land by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit, he filed a suit against IOCL, which was decreed by the trial Court to the extent of payment of monthly lease charges only and the relief for eviction was refused. Against the said judgment, first appeal was preferred by Navratan Singh Rajpurohit, which was allowed by the judgment under review.

4. This review petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the judgments referred by learned counsel for the respondent skipped attention of the Court and could not be considered in the right perspective. It has also been averred that clause (n) of the lease deed executed between the erstwhile lessor Bhanwar Lal and IOCL had not been properly interpreted. In Clause (n) of the said lease deed, though term "renewal" has been employed but looking to the terms and conditions mentioned thereunder, it amounts to "extension", which is an unilateral act of one party for which the consent of another is not required. This principle was enunciated in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent but somehow could not be properly considered by the Court while passing the judgment under review. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Lalji Tandon, reported in AIR 2004 SC 32 has been specifically referred in this respect by learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments on the review petition. He has also referred to the judgment in case of BCCI & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., reported in 2005 AIR SCW p.230 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that application for review will be maintainable also on account of some mistake which may be in the nature of undertaking and also includes misconception of facts and law by the Court. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in case of Nalagarh Dehati Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. v. Beli Ram, reported in AIR 1981 HP 1 wherein it has been laid down that failure of the Court to take into consideration an existing decision of the Supreme Court or taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by its judgment would also amount to a mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record. Learned counsel has further referred the judgments which had been relied upon by him during the earlier arguments upon which the order under review came to be passed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent has contended that all the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner have been exhaustively dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing the judgment under review. So, it cannot be said that attention of the Court has skipped any of the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also contended that Clause (n) of lease deed dated 28.2.1997, has also been elabor