The principle underlying the Explanation to O. XLVII, R. 1 of the Civil P. C., which provides that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment, is of general application and should be invoked while considering an application for review of a judgment of a High Court rendered under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS is a landlords petition seeking review of the judgement delivered on 21-1-1980 allowing a writ petition filed by the tenant of the premises in question and directing the Prescribed Authority to dispose of the landlords application for release under S. 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) in accordance with the observations made in the judgement.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the review petition are these. The review petitioner is the landlord of House No. 104/102, Old Sisamau, Kanpur while the opposite party No. 3 is a tenant of the first and second floor portion of the house. The landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation on the ground that he needed the tenanted portion for his own personal occupation. He also relied on Explanation - IV to S. 21 of the said Act which provided that if the landlord applies for the release of a tenanted portion of a building the remaining part of which is in his own occupation, the need of the landlord would be presumed to be bona fide under S. 21 of the said Act. While the landlords application was pending before the Court below Explanation IV was deleted by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. A question, therefore, arose in a large number of cases as to whether the landlord could rely on Explanation IV in support of his claim thathe bona fide required the building under tenancy for his own personal occupation even after its deletion. For the tenants it was contended that explanation IV merely embodied a rule of evidence and hence must be deemed to be procedural in nature. That being so, the amendment would be deemed to be retrospective and hence be applicable to pending proceedings also. The question was finally settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. District Judge, Bareilly, reported in 1978 (U. P.) RCC 377 : (1978 All LJ 784 ). The Full Bench ruled that the deletion of Explanation IV will have to be taken note of in deciding pending applications also i. e. , the amendment brought about by U. P. Act 28 of 1976 deleting Explanation IV shall have retrospective effect.

( 3 ) FOLLOWING the Full Bench decision in Ram Kumars case, the writ petition filed by tenant was allowed and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the IInd Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, allowing the application of the landlord under S. 21 with the aid of Explanation IV were quashed. The Prescribed Authority was directed to dispose of the Landlords application for release without applying Explanation IV. The result was that the need of the land had to be determined on its merits unaided by the presumption of the genuineness thereof which was previously available under Explanation IV.

( 4 ) AFTER the case was sent back to the Prescribed Authority in January 1980, the landlord did not take any step whatever for the revival of the proceedings for nearly four and a half years. It was only on the 23rd Aug. 1984 that this review application was filed and the sole ground for review disclosed therein was that in a subsequent decision rendered by Supreme Court which was reported in 1984 All LJ 655 Smt. Bimla Devi v. First Addl. District Judge, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have taken the view that there was nothing to indicate that the deletion of Explanation IV was retrospective.

( 5 ) THE application has been contested by the tenant on a variety of grounds. In the first place, it was contended that the mere fact that the view expressed by the Full Bench on which the judgement of this Court was founded has been reversed by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court could not afford a valid ground for review of the judgement rendered by this Court allowing the tenants petition. Secondly, it was contended that in any case the landlord having failed to take any steps before the Prescribed Authority in pursuance of the judgement and order of this Court during all thes