ORDER
M. Chockalingam, J.
1. This application for review is filed by the respondent in the civil revision petition No.2802 of 1997.
2. The respondents/revision petitioners/landlords filed a petition in RCOP No.81/87 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises on the ground that they required the building for the purpose of business, which they were carrying on in a rented building. The petitioner-tenant resisted the said petition contending that the said eviction petition was designed to pressurise him to pay more rent, and it lacked bona fides. On enquiry, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction. Aggrieved tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.53 of 1993. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction. The civil revision petition filed by the landlords in C.R.P.No.2802/97 was allowed by this Court. The respondent in the civil revision petition has sought for review of the said order.
3. Arguing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order of this court, allowing the revision petition suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record; that there was an error in holding that the family of the first petitioner therein and his son Sukumaran stood divided as per the partition deed under Ex.B19; that Ex.B19 was not a partition deed, but only a property tax assessment demand register for the property in D.No.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai; that in the absence of specific pleading, the court has erroneously accepted the plea of partition; that the first petitioner therein was not examined, and the evidence of PW1, the second petitioner therein could not be considered at all for that aspect, since he was not a party to the alleged division; that it has been erroneously held that Sukumaran was not a partner in Kathia Commercial Corporation run in the premises situated in D.no.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai, and the reasons therefor based on Ex.B25 are incorrect; that in Ex.B25 both the petitioners in the RCOP were partners and in their capacity as kartha of the H.U.F., they represented, which meant that HUF including Sukumaran were the partners in the said Kathiah Commercial Corporation; that the court did not take notice of the fact that in Ex.B25, the petitioners in RCOP were not partners in their individual capacity, but only as a representative of HUF, that the court has not considered that the landlords had ceased to carry on their jaggery business, and the need ceased to exist; that there was no partition between the first petitioner therein and Sukumaran as evidenced by the encumbrance certificate produced as Ex.B27; that the premises in D.no.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai was in occupation of a different person, and thus the subsequent events would clearly negative the landlords’ requirement as bona fide; that the counsel for the tenant never admitted that the property in D.No.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai belonged to the first petitioner’s son Sukumaran; that the counsel for the tenant has precisely argued that no document was filed to prove the partition and the allotment of the suit property to Sukumaran; that it was erroneous to state that the existence of the other non-residential building would not debar the landlords’ remedy, which is quite contrary to the statutory requirement; that it is pertinent to note that nowhere in the eviction petition, the landlords specifically averred and admitted the existence of the other non-residential building, as belonging to them, and this itself was a clear pointer to the lack of bona fides on their part; that it is pertinent to note that there was an admission of PW1 that they were in possession of a non-residential building which remained vacant, even at the time of filing of the RCOP, and hence the petition was not maintainable; that the court thoroughly failed to decide the question of bona fides on the part of the landlords vis-a-vis the hardship caused to the tenant; that the court has erroneously relied on certain rent control petitions filed by Sukumaran, when it was nobody’s case that the first petitioner therein and his son Sukumaran were not on cordial terms, and this would indicate the lack of bona fides, and hence, the order passed by this court in the revision petition has got to be reviewed.
4. Countering to the said contentions of the petitioner’s side, the learned counsel for the respondents-revision petitioners would urge that by filing this review application, the petitioner has sought for the reappraisal of the evidence put forth by the parties; that not even one ground is urged or available for reviewing the earlier order of this court; that the petitioner/tenant should not be permitted to again re-agitate the matter, which was already decided by the court in the revision petition by way of a review application; that this court on the basis of the available evidence has gone into the question of bona fides of the landlords and has decided in their favour, and hence the review application is devoid of merits, and the same has got to be dismissed.
5. After careful consideration of the rival submissions and the perusal of the order of this court, which is sought to be reviewed, the court is of the view that the petitioner-tenant has not made out any ground for review of the order of this court, made in C.R.P.No.2802 of 1997.
6. The eviction petition of the landlords on the ground that they required the petition mentioned premises for carrying on their business was allowed. The appeal by the tenant therefrom was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The resultant civil revision petition by the landlords was allowed by this Court, restoring the order of eviction by the Rent Controller. As could be seen from the available materials, the landlords sought eviction specifically alleging that they were carrying on their business in Jaggery in D.no.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai, which belonged to one Sukumaran, the son of the first respondent herein; and that they bona fide required the petition premises to carry on their business. The said petition was resisted by the tenant only on the ground that he was not amenable for the enhancement of rent, and the petition lacked bona fide. Thus, the only question that arose for consideration was whether the landlords proved that they required the premises in question, bona fide for the purpose of carrying on the business. This court has found only after elaborate discussion and scrutiny of the available evidence, that the requirement of the landlords was bona fide.
7. A perusal of Ex.B19 would clearly indicate that it was only a property tax assessment demand register for the property situated in D.No.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai, and it was not a partition deed, as stated in the order under review. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner tenant, in the earlier order Ex.B19 is referred to as partition deed. Relying on Exs.B25 statement of total income, B26 Challans and B27 Encumbrance Certificate, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner tenant would urge that those documents were not properly considered by the court. This contention cannot be countenanced for the reason that Ex.B25 would indicate that Kathiah Commercial Corporation being run at D.No.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai was not shown as a partnership firm in respect of the business conducted therein. But the first son of the first respondent herein, viz. Sukumaran was the owner of D.No.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai. It is true that under Ex.B25, Chandrasekaran and Subramaniam are shown as HUF. The names of the partners did not include Sukumaran. Under the circumstances, the court only after scrutinizing the available evidence, has clearly found that Sukumaran, the first son of the landlord Subramaniam was the owner of D.No.43, Swami Sannathi Street, Madurai, but he was not a partner of the business, which was being carried on there. Thus, it cannot be stated that the order of this court suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record.
8. Needless to say that the power of review could be exercised only on the discovery of new and important evidence, which even after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review and could not be brought forth at the time when the order was made. A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, if found, may also lead to the exercise of power of review. It is well settled that the power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, since this would be within the province of court of appeal. It has to be borne in mind that review is not an appeal in disguise. All the grounds in the review application and also the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/tenant would clearly indicate that the petitioner tenant seeks for reversal of the order passed by this court in the revision petition by way of reappraisal and re-appreciation of the entire evidence, already relied on by the parties. The court is of the view that in exercise of the powers of review, it cannot be done, and if done so, it would be nothing but exceeding its jurisdiction.
9. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it has to be necessarily held that this review application is devoid of merits, and the earlier order of this court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, so as to make a review. This review application is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, this review application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. Petitioner tenant is granted three months’ time for vacating the premises and handing over possession to the landlords on condition of the petitioner filing an affidavit of undertaking on or before 29.4.2002 to that effect.