Delhi District Court
Ram Babu vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 2 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-000853-2024
RP No. 01/24
Meenu Devi v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
02.09.2024
Present: None for the applicant.
Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate for BSES/non-applicant,
through VC.
ORDER
The present Review Petition u/o. XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 & 151 of CPC has been preferred by the appellant/applicant with respect to the judgment dated 21.12.2023 passed by my Ld. Predecessor, vide which the appeal bearing PPA No. 22/2021 was decided, on the ground that the court while deciding the said appeal under Public Premises Act held in para 21 as follows:
"21. In view of these facts, the impugned order qua 'Public Premises' which no longer remains a public premises after the respondent took over the responsibility from erstwhile DVB, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the respondent itself is creating confusion by resorting to proceedings under the Company's Act by initiating proceedings before Ld. ACMM, in addition to invoking jurisdiction of different SDM's qua the same property/premises, as was pointed out by the appellants and no cogent answer/denial came from VIRENDER respondents." KUMAR BANSAL
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that Digitally signed while holding that the property in dispute no longer remains a by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL public premises after the respondent i.e. BSES took over the Date: 2024.09.02 16:00:12 +0530 Page 1 of 6 responsibility from the erstwhile DVB. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. However, after reaching to this conclusion that the respondent nowhere qualifies to fall into the definition, which may lead to a conclusion that the said premises in question is a public premises on the ground that respondent is a company in which government does not have more than 50% share and the respondent is a private company, cannot be equated or treated to be a government company and, hence, the premises is a public premises, but the court dismissed the appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is error apparent as the court has already reached to the conclusion that the premises in dispute is no longer a public premises, the appeal should have been allowed. Ld. Counsel submitted that the order be reviewed and instead of dismissing the appeal, the appeal be allowed and the review petition be accordingly disposed of.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/non-applicant BSES submitted that Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the appeal as the Ld. Trial Court has observed that they are in unauthorized possession, even otherwise, it is a public premises.
5. Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the premises in dispute falls within the definition of public premises as defined u/s.2(3) of the Act. The flats were handed over to the non-applicant herein with the right to use basis and the ownership was never transferred to the non-applicant. The non- applicant is merely a licensee of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi with respect to the said flats in accordance with Delhi Electricity Page 2 of 6 Reforms Act, 2000 and Delhi Electricity (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, being the owner, has also appointed the SDMs of all Sub- Divisions as Estate Officer u/s.3 of the Public Premises Act in respect of the property in dispute. Ld. Counsel submitted that as the flat in dispute is still on and under the control of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the non-applicant is only a licensee, therefore, the premises still falls within the ambit of public premises. It is submitted that keeping in view all these facts, the court has rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no merit in the review, the same be dismissed.
6. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I find that my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.12.2023 dismissed the appeal of the applicant herein. The brief arguments that in para 21 of the judgment, the court has specifically observed that premises in question is no longer a public premises after the BSES i.e. the non-applicant took over the responsibility of the premises in dispute from the erstwhile DVB. And, thereafter, dismissed the appeal.
7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC reads as under:
"1. Application for review of judgment. (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due Page 3 of 6 diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
8. From the bare perused of the same, it is clear that if the error is apparent on the face of record, then the review is maintainable but if one has to go into detail for finding out the error that it is not permissible u/o. XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussed the law on review in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, and summarize the same as follows:
"16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
(A) When the review will be maintainable: -
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 Privy Council 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955)1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 436 : JT 2013(8) SC 275.
(B) When the review will not be maintainable :-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness Page 4 of 6 or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
9. In view of the above judgment, it is clear that if any mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, then review is maintainable. In the present case, as pointed out and as reflected from the order, the court in para 21 of the judgment has observed as follows:
"21. In view of these facts, the impugned order qua 'Public Premises' which no longer remains a public premises after the respondent took over the responsibility from erstwhile DVB, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the respondent itself is creating confusion by resorting to proceedings under the Company's Act by initiating proceedings before Ld. ACMM, in addition to invoking jurisdiction of different SDM's qua the same property/premises, as was pointed out by the appellants and no cogent answer/denial came from respondents."
10. From this paragraph, it is clear that the court has reached to the conclusion that the premises in dispute is no longer a public premises as defined under the Act. Once it is held that premises in dispute is not a public premises and does not fall within the ambit of the public premises as defined under the Act, the proceedings under the Act cannot continue and the Estate Officer also does not get any jurisdiction under the Act to decide with respect to the premises in dispute. Therefore, in the Page 5 of 6 last paragraph, instead of dismissing the appeal, the appeal should have been allowed. It is the error apparent on the face of the record. The review is, therefore, allowed and the paragraph 22 of the order dated 21.12.2023 is modified. It be read as follows:
"22. In view of above discussion and considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the appeal is hereby allowed."
11. The review application is, accordingly, disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court VIRENDER
today i.e. 2nd September, 2024 VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2024.09.02
16:00:50
+0530
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW) Rohini Courts, Delhi (sb) Page 6 of 6 CNR No. DLNW01-000853-2024 RP No. 01/24 Meenu Devi v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
(Now titled as Ram Babu v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.) 04.09.2024 File taken up today as it is pointed out that there is a typographical error in the memo of the parties filed by the petitioner Ram Babu. In fact the review application is filed in the case titled as Ram Babu v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. only, but as the title was lifted from the memo of the parties, therefore, error is created in the title of the order also.
I have perused the file.
The review was filed in the case titled as Ram Babu v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. only. Hence, the title of the order dated 02.09.2024 is corrected and it be read as Ram Babu v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. instead of Meenu Devi v. BSES VIRENDER Yamuna Power Ltd. KUMAR BANSAL Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2024.09.04 (Virender Kumar Bansal) 15:22:01 +0530 Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW) Rohini Courts, Delhi/sb