1952 (7) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court upheld the order. There was a revision petition to the High Court and after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner, I dismissed the revision petition on the foot that there were no grounds to interfere in revision. This review application has been filed on grounds which have been made to fall under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. ( 3. ) The short point for determination is whether this application for review lies. ( 4. ) The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and the rules framed thereunder contain no provision for review and in fact it contained no provision for a revision before that and this Court was holding that no revision lay on account of the fact that the District and Subordinate Judges were appoin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... upon the common sense principle that prima facie a party who has obtained a decision is entitled to keep it unassailed unless the Legislature has indicated the mode by which it can be set aside. A review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same officer who decided the case. Therefore, the course of decisions in this country has been to the effect that a right to review is not an inherent power: see --'David Nadar v. Manicka Vachaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannathi', 33 Mad 65; --Lala Prayag Lal v. Jat Narayan Singh', 22 Cal 419; -- 'Baijnath Ram Goenka v. Nand Kumar Singh', 34 Cal 677 and --'Anantharaju Shetty v. Appu Hegade', 37 MLJ 162. ( 7. ) Therefore we have next to consider whether Order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded to be generally applicable to the proceedings under this Act. ( 8. ) This is the view which has been held in a series of decisions of this court. I have already mentioned the decision of Yahya Ali J. and it need not be repeated. In -- 'Devichand Moolchand v. Dhanraj Kantilal', 1948-1 MLJ 276, decided by a Bench of this court, it has been held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the proceedings under Rent Control Act. The desirability of framing Rules making at least some of the important provisions of the Code applicable to the proceedings under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was pointed out. On account of the suggestion, when the Act came to be extensively amended rules have be....