When exercising review jurisdiction High Court cannot reappraise evidence.

This Review petition arises against the order dated 02.03.2006 passed in C.R.P.(NPD) No.878 of 2002, which itself was preferred against the order dated 08.04.2002 made in R.C.A.No.853 of 1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

2. Originally R.C.O.P.No.2229 of 1995 was filed before the Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller has dismissed the eviction petition. That dismissal was on the ground that there was a bona fide denial of title. Subsequently, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the title and the balance of convenience rests with the landlord and therefore based upon such other matters, eviction was ordered. It is against the said order of R.C.A., the Civil revision petition was preferred by tenant Balakrishnan. The civil revision petition was dismissed on 02.03.2006. Subsequently, on 14.03.2006, revision petitioner died and his legal representatives are now impleaded. These legal representatives of the original tenant Balakrishnan are the review petitioners herein.

3. On 3. 2006, while deciding the Civil Revision Petition, this Court has gone into the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority and had come to the conclusion that there was no bona fide denial of title and therefore, based upon the wilful default in payment of rent for 45 months, the civil revision petition was dismissed, confirming the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in passing an order of eviction.

4. The Review Petitioners submitted that there was a suit filed in O.S.No.7831 of 1994 before the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the landlord and his agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition premises. According to the decree and judgment dated 12. 1998 thereon, which was later confirmed on 29.08.2002 by the III Additional Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai, in A.S.No.62 of 2001, there was an order of injunction against the landlord. It is submitted on behalf of review petitioners that as the proceedings of A.S.No.62 of 2001 was not brought to the notice of this Court during the arguments of civil revision petition, review of the earlier order of this Court is necessary in order to render justice.

5. Before ever we take notice of the result in A.s.No.62 of 2001 and as to whether it has got an implication in the revision proceedings, the maintainability of the review petition is to be decided. True it is that in the following cases, question of maintainability of revision was upheld in such a situation. In the following cases, it was held that the review petition is not maintainable.

.(1) S.J.S.Fernandes vs. Ranganayakalu Chetty 9 (1952)2 MLJ 445)

.(2) P.N.Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji (AIR 1970 SC 1273)

.(3) Seethalakshmi Ammal vs. Rajammal ((1965) 1 MLJ 287)

.(4) Syed Hanifa vs. Muhammad Khalifulla ((1969) 1 MLJ 413)

.(5) Rajam Ayyar vs. Pavanambal(AIR 1949 Mad.787)

(6) Chennakesayalu vs. Mansukhlal ((1966) 1 MLJ 300)

In the following cases, it was held that the review petition is maintainable:

.(1) Usman Koya vs. Muthukrishnan

.(2) Thirupathi Nadar vs. Kandaswami Nadar

.(3) Adaikappa Chetty vs. Chandrasekhara Thevar

.(4) P.M.Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji (AIR 1970 SC 1273)

6. Having discussed with findings in all the above cited cases, it was ultimately held in T.N.Krishnamoorthy vs. Jagat Textiles 1981 (1) MLJ 394 with the following observation;

"The power of revision conferred under section 25 of the Act XVIII of 1960 is on the High Court and while entertaining the revision it exercises the power of a Court created under the Constitution. It is not a persona designata. When power is conferred on a Court, and no other special procedure is prescribed for disposal of matters under a particu