1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.7 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1025 OF 2007 Sadanand V. Uparpalli ..Petitioner V/s. The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & 4 ors. ..Respondents Mr.Vidyabhushan h/f.Mr.M.H.Morje, advocate, for the appellant Mr.B.H.Mehta, AGP, for the State Mr.S.K.Dhara, advocate, for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. Prayer in this application is for review of Judgment and Order dated 21st March, 2007 passed by this Court. By the said order, the First Appeal preferred by the review petitioner was summarily dismissed. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there is an 2 error apparent on the face of the record in as much as the claim of the petitioner (original plaintiff) was that he had exclusive right in respect of a room/a portion of the passage in respect of which no vacation notice was issued. It is, therefore, submitted that eligibility of the petitioner for the allotment referred to order dated 21st March, 2007 is not in respect of the disputed premises subject matter of the suit but was in respect of the room premises about which there was no dispute as regards eligibility of the petitioner/plaintiff for allotment. 3. The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the first respondent is that there was absolutely no evidence led by the petitioner in the Review Petition before the trial Court to show that plaintiff was a lawful tenant or was in exclusive possession of the disputed premises. He therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the Review Petition. 4. I have considered the submissions. The 3 order dated 21st March, 2007 passed in the First Appeal No.1025 of 2007 reads thus :- “.Heard learned counsels on both sides. Perused the impugned judgment. There is clear observation in the judgment with regard to prayer clause (b) which the learned counsel for the appellant is harping that the Plaintiff was considered as eligible for allotment of new premises as per the rules and under the scheme derived by MHADA. Hence this is not a fit case. 2.I do not find any merits in the Appeal, hence the Appeal stands dismissed.” 5. Perusal of the plaint shows that the appellant was claiming to be a lawful tenant of Room No.12 in Building No.9 admeasuring 100 sq.ft on the ground floor, a shop No.12 in a Building No.9A admeasuring 100 sq.ft, a passage of Building No.9 on the ground floor admeasuring about 90 sq.ft and a room admeasuring about 48 sq.ft. The grievance of the petitioner in the plaint seems to be that he has received vacation notice in respect of room No.12 as well as shop No.12 but he has not received such notice in respect of the passage and the room allegedly held by him. There is no dispute that as regards room No.12 and shop No.12, the petitioner has been held eligible for allotment of alternative accomodation. Prayer made in the suit 4 and in particular prayer (b) obviously relates to the premises allegedly held by the petitioner in respect of which no vacation notice has been issued. 6. Thus, there is obviously an error apparent on the face of the record of order dated 21st March, 2007 and the said order needs to be reviewed. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following order. (i) Judgment and Order dated 21st March, 2007 is recalled. (ii) The appeal shall be placed for admission on 5th March, 2008. The petitioner shall issue notice to all concerned parties including the Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai. (A.S.OKA, J.)