TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Review Granted Due to Legal Oversight on Tenant Status Under '1950 Act'; Hearing Scheduled for January 5, 1967.</h1> <h3>Tinkari Sen and Ors. Versus Dulal Chandra Das and Ors.</h3> Tinkari Sen and Ors. Versus Dulal Chandra Das and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of an application for review without an advocate's certificate.2. The court's discretion to review its judgment in the absence of a certificate.3. The presence of an error apparent on the face of the record.4. The distinction between review and reconsideration.5. The legal status of a tenant under the '1950 Act' after the termination of a contractual tenancy.6. The grounds for review based on an oversight of settled law.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of an Application for Review Without an Advocate's Certificate:The application for review lacked a certificate by an advocate certifying the grounds for review as required by Rule 2, Chapter 10 of the Appellate Side Rules. The court examined whether the absence of this certificate rendered the application invalid. It was held that the use of the word 'shall' in the rule does not conclusively make it mandatory. The court emphasized understanding the real intention behind the rule, which is to prevent frivolous applications. Therefore, the absence of a certificate was not seen as a nullification of the application, and the court allowed the advocate to supply the certificate subsequently.2. The Court's Discretion to Review Its Judgment in the Absence of a Certificate:The court considered whether it could review its judgment suo motu in the absence of a certificate. It was argued that the court cannot review its judgment on its own motion unless there is an application by a party. However, the court found that it had a clear case for review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code, and decided to call upon the advocate to file the requisite certificate to supply the omission.3. The Presence of an Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:The court identified an error apparent on the face of the record in its previous judgment. The error related to the interpretation of the legal status of tenants under the '1950 Act.' The court had overlooked a settled legal position established by a Special Bench decision, which clarified that a tenant includes an ex-tenant who is still in possession of the demised premises. This oversight constituted a sufficient ground for review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code.4. The Distinction Between Review and Reconsideration:The application was for both review and reconsideration. The court noted that in the context of the facts at hand, the distinction between review and reconsideration was not significant. The focus was on the presence of an error apparent on the face of the record, which justified the review.5. The Legal Status of a Tenant Under the '1950 Act' After Termination of Contractual Tenancy:The court initially held that tenants who had their contractual tenancy terminated had no locus standi to apply for standardization of rent under the '1950 Act.' However, upon review, it recognized that the definition of a tenant under Section 2, Clause 11 of the '1950 Act' includes an ex-tenant, as established by the Special Bench decision. This recognition corrected the court's earlier interpretation and aligned it with the settled law.6. The Grounds for Review Based on an Oversight of Settled Law:The court acknowledged that its previous decision had overlooked a settled legal position, which constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized that overlooking a well-settled proposition of law provides a valid ground for review. The oversight was not merely an incorrect exposition of law but a failure to apply a binding authority, thereby justifying the review of the judgment.In conclusion, the application for review was allowed, and the rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs due to the court's own oversight. The main rule under Article 227 of the Constitution was set for a hearing on January 5, 1967. The advocate was instructed to record the requisite certificate to complete the record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
