^,^^®^^<i.L,-Lf0\A^^ .:c^^ IN TME HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAtnSGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.) CIVILREVISl6NNO!^,/2^0F20l6 APPLICANT Objector NON-APPLICANT Applicant Khatun Bee, Wd/oRamjan Beg, aged about years, R/o Risaipara Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) L.R'sof Ramjan Beg (since dead) VERSUS Badrunisa, Wd/o Aabid Ali Musalman, aged about not known, R/o Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) REVISION UNDER SECTION23(E) OFTHECHHAtnSGARH ACCOMMODATIONCONTROLACT, 1961 i^B^By . ^ ^I/ fflGH COURT OF CIIHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &B: Hon'Me Shri Prashant Kumar Misdhra QvB Revision No. 62/2010 APPUCANT RESPONDENT : KhatnnBee VCT^US Badrumsa Aooearance: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsd for the applicant. ORALORDER (23.06^010) Heard on admission. (2) An order of eviction was passed by the Rent Confrolling Authority on 27/04/95 against one Ramjaa Beg. (3) The applicuit herein is Ifae widow of Ramjan Beg. She appears to have moved an objection in the execution proceedings on 13/11709 (Annexure A-4) and later on moved an qyplication under Section 151 CPC which leamed counsel for tbe ajylicant refers as review application for review/recalling ofthe order dated 30 October, 20W, passed by Ae Reat Controlling Aulfaority directing issuance of warrant ofpossession. (4) This revision application is preferred against the impugned wder dated 18/01/2010, whereby tiie applicant's application uader Section 151 CPC has beai dismissed with an observation ftat Ihe Rent Controlling Authority is not empowered to review its own order. -2-- (5) Keeping into consideration tfae &ct that the eviction order was passed oa 27/04/95, which is yet to be executed, even afler lapse of 15 yeazs, Ihis court is not inclined to entertain this revision applicatimi. (6) Otherwise also review is creature of the srtatute and Ae said power is not available to the Rent Controlling Authority, unless it is specifically conferred by the statute. (Pafel Nmshi Thakeisht and others vs. K'adyumawsing/yi.Aijttnsinghji reportsd in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1173). (7) Leamed counsel for the iyplicant submits fliat her objection (Annexure A-4) is still pending, however, this revision petition cannot be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia for issumice ofa directioa. (8) Ifthe said petition is still pending, theapplicantmayresortto the remedies available under law. (9) The revision petition is disnussed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge