There is a difference between an erroneous decision and error apparent on the face of the record.

1. The present Review Application has been filed praying for review of the order passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice N. Dinaharan (as he then was) dated 21. 2004 made in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1836 of 2003.

.2. The short facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the Review Application is as follows:

.The petitioners/applicants are the landlords and they filed Eviction Petition against the respondent in R.C.O.P. No.44 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Erode, on the ground of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller allowed the above Eviction Petition. On an Appeal by the respondent herein in R.C.A. No.13 of 2001, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, by his order dated 25.06.2003 set aside the same, thereby dismissing the Petition for eviction filed by the petitioners/applicants. The petitioners/applicants aggrieved against the said order have preferred a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1836 of 2003. This Court has dismissed the said Revision Petition by an Order dated 23.01.2004. The said order is sought to be reviewed in this Review Application.

.3. Mr. A. Sivaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/applicants contended that the order passed by this Court in the said revision requires reconsideration in view of the non-consideration of the materials available on record. Further, he has submitted that the documents filed on the side of the petitioners/applicants will clearly establish the conduct of the respondent in not depositing the monthly rents regularly either before the disputed period or after filing the Rent Control Original Petition. Further the respondent has paid lump sum payments on several occasions towards arrears of rent which will indicate the conduct of the respondent in not paying the rents regularly which has lost sight of by this Court while dismissing the revision. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submit that the respondent has admitted in the course of the evidence that adjacent building owned by the petitioners has been demolished and re-constructed, which will establish not only the income therefrom can be used for the source of the proposed demolition and reconstruction but also condition of the present building. Thus, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants is that the reading of the order made in the Revision will indicate that there are errors apparent on the face of the record and hence the said order has to be reviewed.

4. Per contra , Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the learned Judge considered all the material evidence on record both oral and documentary and came to the conclusion that the petitioners/applicants are not entitled for an order of eviction both on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction and hence it needs no Review. More particularly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the review is not permissible on the ground that the documents before the Court has not been properly considered or interpreted in proper perspective. It is contended that there should be an error apparent on the face of the record in order to Review the earlier decision. Thus it is contended that the petitioners/applicants, if at all, aggrieved by the orders made in the Revision, they ought to have filed S.L.P. before the Honourable Apex Court. Without doing so, the petitioners/applicants are not entitled for review of the order passed in Revision.

5. I have heard Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/applicants and Mr. P. Valliappan learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

.6. It is an admitted case that the petitioners/applicants being the landlords have filed Eviction Petition on two grounds viz. , wilful default and for demolition and reconstr