TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall of the earlier order. (ii) Whether the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 conferred jurisdiction to evict tenants from attached property, or whether such rights had to be worked out before the Rent Court.
Issue (i): Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall of the earlier order.
Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the matter merely because some authorities were not cited at the earlier hearing. The earlier order had already proceeded on the binding effect of the consent terms and on the absence of jurisdiction in the Court to grant eviction in the manner sought. The authorities relied upon by the applicant did not justify reopening the concluded decision on the facts presented.
Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the review application was not maintainable on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 conferred jurisdiction to evict tenants from attached property, or whether such rights had to be worked out before the Rent Court.
Analysis: Attachment of the notified party's property did not extinguish the rights and liabilities of occupants already in possession. The statutory scheme did not displace the forum competent to determine landlord-tenant rights, and the overriding effect of the Act did not authorize eviction of tenants from attached property in disregard of the Rent Court's jurisdiction. At most, the Custodian could pursue appropriate remedies before the forum competent to decide tenancy issues.
Conclusion: The Court held that eviction of the tenants could not be ordered in the review proceedings and that the matter lay before the Rent Court.
Final Conclusion: The earlier order was left undisturbed, and the review proceedings failed for want of any legal basis to recall the prior decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used to reopen a concluded order unless a manifest error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated, and statutory attachment of property does not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the competent rent forum to determine tenants' rights.
TaxTMI 
