9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purpose of deciding this review application are as under:- 4. Misc. Application No.218 of 2009 was taken out by the Custodian, seeking an order of eviction of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit premises and for other consequential reliefs. The Respondents - Pushpa Builders Ltd. and others claimed to be the tenants in respect of the first floor of the building situated at E-162, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. It is their case that so far as their status as tenants is concerned, it has been confirmed by the Apex Court in its order dated 13/01/2010 in CA No.6866 of 2003. In Misc. Application No. 218 of 2009, the relief which was claimed was that the order of eviction be passed against the Respondents - tenants by exercising powers veste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Solidaire India Ltd vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 71. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tax Recovery Officer vs. Custodian (2007) 7 SCC 461 and also on the judgment in Bank of India vs. Ketan Parekh (2008) 8 SCC 148. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in CA No.6866 of 2003 filed by Respondent No.1 - Company which was dismissed by the Apex Court by its order dated 13/01/2010 and also on the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 24/02/2009 in W.P. (C) 3692 of 2004 [Renuka Wahi vs. Custodian & Anr] wherein it was observed that the Special Court alone had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the properties and pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on the face of record committed by this Court and, therefore, no case is made out for reviewing the earlier order passed by this Court. 9. Mr. Tewari, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant relied on the judgment of the Federal Court in Mt. Jamna Kuer1 (supra) and submitted that the Federal Court observed that when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, whether the error occurred by reason of the counsel's mistake or it crept in by reason of an oversight on the part of the Court, is not a circumstance which can affect the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court to review its decision. In the said case, Jamna Kuer filed a Petition claiming all properties mentioned in the supplementary list dated 20/8/1936 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court and it was held that she was entitled to be declared as an owner of the properties left by Kunj Behari Lal. The only dispute was regarding the list of properties which were mentioned in the suit and this mistake was sought to be corrected. In this context, the Federal Court had made those observations. In the present case, Consent Terms were filed in this court and pursuant to the said Consent Terms, possession of the property was given to the Respondents as tenants which order was approved by the Apex Court and, secondly, this Court had held that in view of the provisions of the said Act, this Court did not have jurisdiction to evict the tenants from the attached property since the Rent Court alone had jurisdiction to do so. 11. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d unnoticed or if the attention of the Court was not drawn to any relevant and material statutory provisions or if any previous decision of the Court bearing on the point was not noticed, or if the decision was clearly erroneous. In my view, the ratio of the said judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case since the Apex Court had made those observations in respect of the power of the Supreme Court to review its decision particularly after it noticed the judgment of the 7 Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in Keshav Mills vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1965) 2 SCR 908, 921: AIR 1965 SC 1636: (1965) 56 ITR 365 wherein the reference was made to Article 141 and it was observed that when the Apex Court decides the question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the said decision also was binding on this Court. 12. Reliance was also placed on various provisions of Regulations and it is submitted that in view of section 13, provisions of the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992 had an overriding effect over all other Acts. It is not possible to accept this submission. Even if the property of the notified party is attached, that does not mean that rights and liabilities of the occupants in the attached property of the notified party stood extinguished or that this Court would have power to recover possession of the said properties from the tenants under the provisions of the said Act. The Respondents being tenants in respect of the attached property of the notified party, their rights will ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
