REV.APPL/155/2023 of LOURDU MARIE SANTHO (DIED) 1.Periyanayagam Vs CHANDIRAN on 2 September 2026

ORDER

The Review Application has been filed by the respondent in CRP. No.450 of 2021.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi, learned counsel for the review applicants and Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

3. The matter arises under the Pondicherry Building, Lease and Rent Control Act, 1980. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:- The respondent herein filed RCOP. No.51 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Controller II, Puducherry seeking eviction of the review applicants on the ground of denial of title, willful default in payment of rents and own use and occupation. After enquiry, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition and aggrieved by the same, the respondent/landlord preferred RCA. No.39 of 2018. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and held that the denial of title by the review applicants was bonafide and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to seek eviction of the review applicants invoking the provisions of the Pondicherry Building, Lease and Rent Control Act, 1980 (in short 'Act').

4. As against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondent/landlord has preferred CRP. No.451 of 2021, this Court by order dated 07.06.2023, allowed the revision and by setting aside the concurrent orders of the Courts below and ordered the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord. The review application came to be filed and listed before the very same learned Judge, who disposed of the revision petition and the learned Judge has thought it fit to entertain the review and had ordered notice on 13.06.2023. In fact, thereafter also it has been listed before the very same learned Judge, but the review application has not been decided until the superannuation of the learned Judge. Thereafter, the review has been listed before me.

5. It is the submissions of Mr.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel for the review applicants/tenants that the review applicants had entered into an agreement of sale on 08.09.1988 and the character of their possession changed with the said agreement of sale and therefore, they were no longer tenants even under the vendor of the respondent. Their possession as tenants became possession in part performance of the agreement of sale. However, subsequently the erstwhile vendor viz., erstwhile landlord has sold the property to the respondent herein, who has chosen to initiate the eviction petition, alleging willful default, denial of title and also seeking re-possession on the ground of owner's occupation. Both the Rent Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, found that the denial was not malafide, but bonafide and hence, dismissed the eviction petition concurrently, holding that the proper remedy to recover possession was to only approach the competent Civil Court.

6. It is also the submission of Mr.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel that in fact, pursuant to the agreement of sale an unregistered sale deed was also executed in favour of the petitioners by the four sons of the original owner, one P.Kandasamy. However, without any reference to the same, the daughters of Kandasamy, after lapse of 20 years, chose to issue a notice and thereafter invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and sought to evict the petitioners. He would also state that there was a pre eviction petition notice issued by the daughters of Kandasamy and the said notice has also suitably replied to, without any delay.

7. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that suppressing all these facts, the four sons of Kandasamy, along with his two daughters have conveyed the subject property, in and by sale deed dated 27.03.2012, in favour of the respondent and the respondent himself, on the strength of sale in his favour, issued a lawyer's notice on 06.07.2012, which was suitably replied to by the review applicants/tenants. The learned Senior Counsel therefore states that exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, no doubt this Court had power to set aside the concurrent findings, but when this Court had committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record, then it is permissible for this Court to review the order, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

8. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others, reported in (1954) 2 SCC 881;

(ii) Thungabhadra Industries Ltd Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, reported in, 1963 SCC Online SC 94;

(iii) Inderchand Jain (D) through LRs Vs. Motilal (D) through LRs., reported in, 2009 (5) CTC 365;

(iv) Azhagammai Vs. R.Ramanathan and another, reported in, 2025 (4) CTC 248;

(v) Chandiran Vs. Lourdu Marie Santho (Died) and others, reported in 2023-3-L.W.838;

(vi) Tribhunvanshankar Vs. Amrutlal, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788; and

(vii) Nestore and another Vs. Mrs.Regeena and others, reported in, 2021- 1-L.W.245.

9. Per contra, Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord would firstly contend that the review is not an appeal in disguise and having not preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was not open to the review applicants to seek review before this Court. Even on the merits, he would contend that the review applicants are admittedly agreement holders and that the claim based on an unregistered sale deed was clearly unworthy of even being looked into. He would further state that the claim for part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also does not arise, since the agreement had to be registered to enable the agreement holder to claim right of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He would also state that the review applicants, by their own conduct, in not having filed a suit for specific performance, had lost their right to even enforce the alleged sale agreement against the four sons of Kandasamy and therefore, they are not entitled to seek any protection either under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act or even contend that their denial of the title of the respondent is bonafide.

10. The learned counsel Mr.P.Sunil, has relied on the following judgements:-

(i) Ashrafi Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86;

(ii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in, AIR 2003 Gujarat 157;

(iii) Spanco Limited Vs. A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Limited, reported in, 2010(6) ALLMR 572;

(iv) Palani @ Boologanathan and Others Vs. Thananjayan @ Murugesan (died) and others, reported in, (2019) 7 MLJ 662; and

(v) Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitra Devi and others, reported in, 1998 (I) CTC 25.

11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

12. I am conscious of the fact that the scope of a review application is very limited. Order 47 of CPC deals with the power of review and the scope of review has been elaborately dealt with in a number of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is by now well settled law that a review is not an appeal in disguise and in a review application, a Court cannot review, recall or modify its own order, even if erroneous findings have been rendered by the Court, in such event, the proper remedy being only an appeal or revision, as the case may be. Keeping the power of this Court in review jurisdiction in mind, I proceed to test the merits of the grounds seeking review. As already noticed herein above, the fact that the very same Judge who allowed the revision and ordered eviction has thought it fit and proper to entertain the review application, cannot be lightly brushed aside.

13. Under the provisions of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1980 which are pari materia to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, one of the grounds for evicting a tenant is when there is a malafide denial of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The very application of the Rent Control Act, comes into play only when there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of a building and not even just vacant land. In such circumstances, the legislature has incorporated a provision to enable a landlord to seek eviction when the tenant denies the very existence of a landlord and tenant relationship. It is trite law that the issue of title cannot be gone into by a Rent Control Court and it can be decided only by a Competent Civil Court.

14. The order which is now sought to be reviewed, is in fact a reported judgment in 2023 3 L.W. 838. This Court proceeded to reverse well considered findings, after elaborate trial before the Rent Controller and such findings being affirmed on re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. On the premise that the review applicants have not produced any documents to prove their title, this Court set aside the concurrent findings and ordered eviction.

15. As already stated hereinabove, the question of title is alien to enquiry under the Rent Control Act, be it the Pondicherry enactment or the Tamil Nadu enactment. It is a matter which is within the domain of the Civil Courts alone. The denial that is contemplated as a ground for eviction is restricted to an enquiry as to whether the tenant has denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, on the facts and circumstances of the case before the Rent Controller and has got nothing to do with the title of the subject property.

16. Though Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the facts which revolve only around whether the denial is bonafide or not, since the same cannot be gone into in a review application, I am not looking into any of those

decisions relied in respect of the merits of the revision but I am restricting my discussion only with regard to the power of the Review Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Vs. State Sale Tax Officer and others, reported in 2024, 2 SCC 362, held that:-

(1) A Judgement is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(2) A Judgement pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(3) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the fact of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review

(4) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be" reheard and corrected"

(5) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be" an appeal in disguise"

(6) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided

(7) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions

(8) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-S.114 and Or. 47- Supreme Court Rules, 2013 Or. XLVII (Para16).

17. Keeping these general principles in mind if I find that this Court has committed an error which is apparent on a mere reading of the order under review, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the error straightaway strikes at the root and there is no requirement of any long drawn process of reasoning on any point, on which there may be two opinions. As held by this Court in Azhagammai’s case, (referred herein supra) referred herein supra, when the Court has missed the main fulcrum of the plaint upon which, the suit revolved, then it is the duty of the Court to review the erroneous order and ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath’s case (referred herein supra), also held that in order to exercise the power of review, it is essential that the error must be self-evident and apparent on the face of the record, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no exhaustive or precise definition as to what is an error apparent on the face of the record and the same has to be left to the Court to determine the same judicially on the facts of each case.

19. In Greenview Tea and Industries' case, (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in S.Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in, 1993 Supplement 4 SCC 595, held that it is the duty of the Court to rectify, revise and recall its order as and when it is brought to its notice that certain of its orders were passed on wrong and mistake assumption of facts and that implementation of those orders would have serious consequences, especially because an act of Court should prejudice none.

20. Insofar as the decisions that have been relied on by Mr.P.Sunil, in Asharfi Devi’s case, (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court only held that every error/mistake, factual or legal cannot be subject matter of the review and only errors apparent on the face of the record would attract the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. With regard to the general principle laid down in Asharfi Devi’s case, I have no quarrel and I am bound by the ratio laid down, which in fact which has also been reiterated by the several other judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

21. In Parsion Devi’s case, (referred herein supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court again held that if the error is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, then it is not an error apparent on the face of the record, which can be corrected in review. This Court in Palani @ Boologanathan’s case (referred herein supra), held that the review jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, is only to correct mistakes and not errors in law or where different views could have been taken on the point of law or fact or when subsequent judgments can be applied to the judgment under review, thereby arriving at a different conclusion. Similarly in Spanco Limited's case, (referred herin supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court again held that the power of review is very limited in nature and unless any one of the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 are made out, the Review Court cannot exercise jurisdiction.

22. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited's case (referred herein supra), also held that review jurisdiction can be exercised only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. Keeping the above principles in mind and as already discussed, and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the phrase 'error apparent on the face of the record' not being defined precise or exhaustively or anywhere, it is left to the discretion and determination of the review Court to see if on the facts and circumstances of the case before it, there is such an error apparent on the face of the records, I proceed to deal with the case on hand.

23. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the respondent/landlord entered the scene long after an agreement of sale was executed by the four sons of Kandasamy in favour of the review applicants, which was also followed up by an unregistered sale deed. No doubt, no error was committed by this Court in not relying upon the unregistered sale deed which is clearly inadmissible in the eye of law. However, this Court did not notice the crucial fact that after such agreement and unregistered sale deed, there was no payment of rent by the review applicants to anybody, including the children of late Kandasamy and also the daughters of the Kandasamy, who in fact, without reference to the four brothers who had entered into an agreement of sale and also executed an unregistered sale deed, chose to issue a lawyer's notice as if, they were landlords and called upon the review applicants to vacate and after an effective reply was sent, no further action was taken.

24. Admittedly, the respondent has not been even put in possession of the property purchased by him, since it has been in the continuous possession and enjoyment of the review applicant. There has been no attornment of tenancy as well. For more than two decades, the review applicants have been in enjoyment of the property until such time, the property was purchased by the respondent, in their own right and without any liability or any demand for payment of rent. In such circumstances, the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on assessing the oral and documentary evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant was bonafide and held that the proper remedy was open to the respondent was to approach the competent Civil Court. However, this Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the review applicants, in order to successfully deny the right of the respondent/landlord, in a bonafide manner have to establish their title. Rent Control proceedings are summary in nature and no detailed or roving trial or enquiry is contemplated unlike a Civil Suit. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1980, it was not open to this Court to re-appreciate evidence and come to a different conclusion that has been concurrently reached by the two Courts below. When such conclusion is found to be erroneous on the face of the record viz., holding the tenants guilty of malafide denial of title on the only ground that they have not established their title, which was totally alien in an application for eviction filed by the respondent/landlord. The burden was wrongly cast on the tenant instead of requiring the landlord to establish a case of denial, not being bonafide.

25. This Court is certainly well within its power to review the order in the revision. As consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, no elaborate process of reasoning is also necessary to reach a conclusion that the error committed by this Court is apparent on the face of the record and the error strikes and meets the eye on even a reading of the order and findings of the Court. Hence, I am inclined to allow the review and the order.

26. In fine, this Review Application is allowed and the order in CRP. No.450 of 2021, dated 07.06.2023 is set aside and the eviction petition in RCOP. No.51 of 2012, stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

02-09-2026 Index: Yeso Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes RKP To

1. The II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

2. The Court of Rent Controller-II, Puducherry.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in Review Application No.155 of 2023 and CMP. No.17680 of 2023 02-09-2026