Find a Lawyer

Review Petition No.24-R of 1980 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.80 of 1980, decided on 3rd May, 1980.

(On review from the order of the Supreme Court, datedo4-2-1980 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.80 of 1980).

---O. XXVI--Review by Supreme Court--Review Petition based on what was said to be a factual inaccuracy in recital of date of an order and authority which passed same--Legal questions which were sought to be examined were same which were already examined at length--Factual mistake pointed out, having no bearing on legal questions sought to be examined--Petitioner, however, raising another point which was not raised at any earlier stage not even in petition seeking leave from Supreme Court--Review petition,-held, in fact was claiming a rehearing of same points without proper grounds or reasons--Petition dismissed.

S.M. Chaudhry, Advocate with M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1980.

The petitioner, a tenant, seeks review of our order, dated 4-2-1980, whereby his petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order originating in the Court of the Rent Controller and maintained by the High Court was dismissed.

2. The review petition is based on what is said to be a factual inaccuracy in recital of date of an order and the authority which passed it on the settlement side. The legal questions which are sought to be examined are the same namely, the effect of remand earlier ordered by the High Court in Constitutional petition and its being set aside by the Supreme Court and the scope and meaning of the expression "possession" used in section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The factual mistake has no bearing on the legal questions sought to be examined though the learned counsel has tried to make it so by alleging for the first time in the review petition that the order of transfer passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was a nullity, admitting that the question of nullity could not be as such examined by a Court of limited jurisdiction like that of the Rent Controller and that it was not raised at any earlier stage not even in the petition seeking leave from this Court.

3. As regards the two legal grounds, they have already been examined 'at length and the petitioner is in fact claiming a rehearing of the same points without proper grounds or reasons.

4. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the petitioner is occupying a commercial premises, some time more should be allowed to him to vacate the premises by making alternate arrangement. While dismissing the petition for leave we were cognizant of this fact and had allowed the petitioner three months' time. We do not think that any further relief is in the circumstances called for. The petition is dismissed.

M.Z.M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.