The court affirmed that review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-evaluate legal interpretations made in the original judgment, emphasizing the importance of statutory provisions in determining tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT. :

1. Review is sought of the judgment and order dated 19th May 2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7931 of 2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Review Petitioner is referred to as “Landlord” and Respondent no 3 as “Tenant”. The facts as revealed from the judgment under review is that Writ Petition No. 7931 of 2019 was filed by Tenant challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division and Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, evicting the Tenant under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act , 1999 [for short “the Act of 1999”]. By virtue of leave and license agreement dated 16th May 1971, the suit premises i.e. Flat No.5 situated in Shivsagar building at Blck No. 19, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Mumbai was given on leave and licence basis by the original owner – Sita Kayship to the Tenant.

3. The licence was subsisting on 1st February 1973 however, at the request of owner, the rent was to be enhanced from Rs.525/- to Rs.600/- fresh agreement purportedly extending the licence was executed between the parties on 30th July 1973 inter alia providing for such enhanced rent / compensation. The suit premises changed hands and fresh agreement was executed for providing increased rent. The suit premises was thereafter sold to one Savitri Dubey who is the predecessor in title of the Landlord. By agreement dated 21st April 2001, licence was purported to be created in favour of the Tenant by late Savitri Dubey providing once again for enhanced rent. In the year 2005, Tenant filed suit under Section 33 of Small Causes Court at Mumbai being R.A.D. Suit No. 600 of 2005 for declaration of deemed tenancy which at the time of hearing of petition was pending. During the pendency of the declaratory suit, late Savitri filed Application No.13 of 2005 before the Competent Authority for eviction of the Tenant as licensee from the suit premises in which the Tenant applied for leave to defend. Upon the leave to defend being denied by the Competent Authority and Revision Application being rejected, Writ Petition No. 7380 of 2005 was filed in this Court by the Tenant. By an order dated 30th January 2013, the orders rejecting leave to defend was set aside and the Tenant was granted leave to defend. Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Landlord was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court as also the review petition.

Subsequently, the Tenant filed its written statement and also an additional written statement. By order dated 15th June 2018, the Competent Authority allowed the Eviction Application which order was confirmed in Revision by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

4. This Court in Writ Petition No. 7931 of 2019 considered the submissions raised by counsel for the Landlord and Tenant and allowed the Petition vide judgment dated 19th May, 2020 and held thus in paragraph 16 :

“the sum and substance of the above discussion is that in view of the deemed tenancy of the petitioner herein, the suit premises are exempted from the application of the Act and as a result, the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain any application under section 24 of the Act in respect of the premises. The impugned orders of the competent authority and the Additional Commissioner, thus, deserve to be quashed and set aside.”

5. The present review petition seeks review of the judgment of 19th May 2020.

6. Heard Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review petitioner and Mr. P. J. Thorat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3. Both have tendered synopsis and written submissions.

7. Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Review Petitioner submits that the judgment suffers from apparent error of law. He submits that for the purpose of exercise powers of review, the errors on the face of record are not required to be confined to error of fact but extend to errors of law which are apparent on the face of record. He has taken this Court through the findings in the judgment under