The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of review is limited, and only a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected through a review application. An erroneous decision can only be corrected by a higher forum.

Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.

(Review Application No. 253 of 2010)

(Delay Condonation Application No. 2726 of 2010)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of this review application, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated 31-12-2009 passed in W.P.M.S. No. 111 of 2007, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on merits.

3. Since there is delay in filing the review application, the applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit.

4. Grounds are sufficient to condone the delay in moving the review application.

5. Delay in filing the review application is condoned. (Delay condonation application No.2726 of 2010 is allowed.)

6. The review application has been filed mainly on the ground that the tenancy of the petitioner is regulated by the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and not under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. The learned counsel for the review applicant has contended that this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.Lakshmipathi and others Vs. P.Nithyananda Reddy and others [(2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 150] wherein the Apex Court has considered the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 has contended that the judgment in the case of Abdul Alim Vs. Sheikh Jamal Uddin Ansari and others reported in [(1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases, Page 683] has not been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. Bibi Husn Bano and others [2005(2) ARC 921 (Supreme Court)] and it has been held by the Apex Court that the case of Abdul Alim (supra) is not a good law. This judgment was rendered by the Apex Court keeping in view the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

9. In paragraph no. 18 of the judgment passed by this Court, at pages 8-9, there is a reference of the case of T.Lakshmipathi and others Vs. P.Nithyananda Reddy and others [(2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 150]. I find that the facts of the case at hand are almost similar to that of the cited case. According to the petitioner-review applicant himself, he purchased 1/11th share of the entire Bansal Building, which was mentioned in the sale deed. This fact has not been disputed that the review applicant is a tenant of a particular shop and as per his own document, he has purchased 1/11th share of the disputed property.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3-landlord has contended that the scope of review is limited and by way review application, only the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected but an erroneous decision cannot be permitted to be reheard and corrected. Learned counsel for the opposite party-landlord has relied upon the case of Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others [(1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 715] wherein it has been held that if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record, the same can be corrected in exercise of review jurisdiction, but an erroneous decision can only be corrected by the higher forum.

11. In the case at hand, this Court has derived the ratio from the Apex Court judgment in the case of T. Lakshmipathi and others Vs. P.Nithyananda Reddy and others (supra) and it has been rightly held that the petitioner had only purchased 1/11th share in the disputed property from co-owner Smt. Rajesh Agrawal alias Rajeshwari Agrawal by registered sale deed on 9-6-2003 and no specific portion was sold out in favour of the petitioner. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record.

12. The other grounds taken in the review application can only be looked into by the higher forum and not by this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction.

13. No good ground is made out to allow the revi