1. This petition has been submitted to review the judgment dated 27.5.1999 delivered in civil miscellaneous Appeal No. 103/96 by brother G.D Sharma, J.

2. Record reveals that a suit to declare the plaintiff-petitioner lessee of the portion of the premises in Shah cinema measuring 9780. sq. ft situated at Qamarwari, Srinagar, was filed against the Union of India, its functionaries, functioneries of the State Government and two private individuals, Nazir Ahmad and Abdul Qayoom. The petitioner also claimed compensation for loss suffered by him on account of his unauthorised eviction by security forces from the suit premises and, in alternative for further direction to the official respondents to acquire the property in accordance with law. Alongwith the suit an application for interim relief with the prayer that the official respondents should not pay any rent or compensation for the area measuring 9780 sq.ft. to any person, excepting the petitioner, was also filed before the trial court. The trial court considered the interim application on merits and, after hearing learned counsel for parties, passed the following order on 14.10.1995.

For these reason, therefore, as the important question of fact and law are involved and are to be adjudicated upon in the case, I think, it will be proper to ask the security forces to deposit the rent of the disputed portion before the court and the Nazir of this court will keep it in the fixed deposit in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Branch Office Amira Kadal, Srinagar, till the matter is finally decided.

This order dated 14.10.1995 was challenged in CIMA No. 103/96 by Nazir Ahmad Shah in this Court. After hearing counsel for the parties this court (brother Justice G.D Sharma) allowed the appeal vide order dated 27.5.1999 and set-aside the order of the trial court. It is against this order dated 27.5.1999 that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed this review petition.

The main grounds taken in the review petition are that several documents submitted on record, establishing the tenancy of the petitioner in the suit property, have not been considered while passing the order dated 27.5.1999 which has caused failure of justice. The respondents in their income-tax returns have admitted acceptance of rent from the plaintiff-petitioner as a tenant and this fact has been over-looked by the court. The order suffers from error of law apparent on the face of the record insofar as the petitioner has been equated with a tenant who has voluntarily created a new lease without the consent of the landlord in favour of the security forces. It is the petitioner who is entitled to occupational charges from security forces. The judgment impugned in the appeal has been set-aside under a misconception of facts and circumstances made out from the record and in order to correct the mistake on the record, the review petition be allowed.

3. The stand taken by the respondents is that the review petition is not maintainable as none of the ground recognised by law exist, nor have been shown to exist, warranting review of the judgment. The court has considered the entire material submitted on record and passed the order on merits. The appreciation or mis-appreciation of material existing on record does not constitute grounds for review. The petitioner is not a tenant of the respondents and the respondents have not reflected the acceptance of rent from the petitioner as their tenant in the income tax returns which is evident from the attested true copy of the returns certificate issued by the Income-tax authorities. The status of the petitioner is yet to be determined in the proceedings pending before the trial court. The petitioner has remedy to claim damages against the party who forceably dispossessed him. The law does not countenance the positions where a tenant has been dispossessed by a third party (not by the landlord) and the tenant, thereafter, accepted his dispossession and starts recovering rent from the third party. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document