IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1027 of 2010()
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT
... Petitioner
2. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT,
3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
4. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER,
Vs
1. P.N.RAMESH BABU, S/O.NEMACHANDRA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :09/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
R.P. No.1027 2010
in
R.S.A. No.754 of 2009
====================================
Dated this the 09th day of December, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the appellants in R.S.A. No.754 of
2009 for review of the judgment dated March 25, 2010 dismissing
the appeal at the admission stage.
2. Petitioners were aggrieved by judgment and decree
passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery in A.S. No.44 of
2003 allowing the respondent to recover rent arrears in respect of
the building belonging to him and rented out to the State to
accommodate Town Employment Exchange. When the proposal
came, respondent offered to rent out the building for rent at the
rate of `.4/- per square foot per month as per Ext.A1, letter
dated 25.11.1995 and consequent to that, petitioner No.4
informed respondent as per letter dated 29.11.1995 that a
building having a plinth area of 1000 sq.ft. is needed. There was
also further correspondences between petitioners and the
respondent. Exhibit A3 marked in the trial court is a letter dated,
R.P. No.1027 of 2010 in
R.S.A. No.754 of 2009
-: 2 :-
30.11.1995 from petitioner No.2 according sanction to take the
building of respondent on rent. As per that letter petitioner No.2
approved the lease arrangement (rent being `.4/- per square foot
per month for 1000 sq.ft.) till alternative accommodation is made
available by the P.W.D. for the Town Employment Exchange. On
that basis the building was rented out to the petitioners.
Respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent arrears at the above
rate. Trial court dismissed the suit. Respondent took up the
matter in appeal. Appellate court observed that interpretation
given by the learned Munsiff to Ext.A4 is not correct and that so
far as the rent originally fixed, there was no dispute between
parties. Appellate court relied on Ext.A4 and granted a decree in
favour of the respondent. That judgment and decree were
challenged by the petitioners in R.S.A. No.754 of 2009. It was
contended on behalf of petitioners that interpretation given by
the appellate court to Ext.A4 is not legally sustainable and that a
reading of the relevant document would reveal that there was
only a tentative agreement for fixing rent at the rate of `.4/- per
square foot per month subject to procedural formalities to be
complied by the PWD including fixation of rent. Stress was given
to the contention that Ext.A4 is subject to procedural formalities to
R.P. No.1027 of 2010 in
R.S.A. No.754 of 2009
-: 3 :-
be complied by the PWD regarding fixation of rent. This Court
was not inclined to accept that contention of petitioners. This
Court found that appellate court has correctly interpreted Ext.A4
and that rent payable to the respondent is at the rate of `.4/- per
square foot per month until alternative accommodation is
provided by the PWD for accommodating the Town Employment
Exchange. This Court further found that the statement in Ext.A4
(extracted in the judgment under review) did not mean that rate
of rent was yet to be fixed. In the circumstances the Second
Appeal was dismissed at the threshold. That dismissal is sought
to be reviewed by the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader
has contended that there was no binding agreement between
parties in the sense that Ext.A4 was not signed by the respective
parties and hence it was not binding on the petitioners. In the
review petition certain substantial questions of law are also raised
for consideration such as whether in the absence of signed
agreement between the parties petitioners are liable to pay rent
(as stated in Ext.A4), whether respondent can claim rent more
than what is fixed by the petitioners and whether the order in RCP
No.10 of 1997 wiped out entire arrears.
3. The contentions raised are not sufficient ground for
R.P. No.1027 of 2010 in
R.S.A. No.754 of 2009
-: 4 :-
review under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure
(for short, “the Code”). That is because a review is not a
substitute for an appeal or, an opportunity for a re-hearing of the
matter. A review can be entertained only on the limited grounds
stated in Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code. Here certain
substantial questions of law are raised in the petition for review.
This court while disposing of the Second Appeal pointed out that
petitioners did not pout out any provision of law or authority
holding that in the absence of a written agreement petitioners are
not liable to pay rent as per Ext.A4. A court of review cannot
entertain those contentions. Contentions raised by the petitioners
in the review petition are to be raised in an appeal against the
judgment and decree of this Court. In the circumstances the
review petition cannot be entertained.
Review Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv