1 RA 112.2011 in SA 119.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/12/2011. Mr. A.V.Anturkar, Advocate holding for Mr. V.M.Kagne, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C.V.Korhalkar, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1,3 & 4. ..................... PER COURT : 1. Vide the present application, the applicant seeks review of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 119 of 2011 dated 17/03/2011. 2. Mr. Anturkar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner/applicant submits that this Court while passing the Order in Second Appeal has committed an error apparent on the face of record in as much as this Court has observed that Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act [ For short, ‘ Tenancy Act ’ ] is inapplicable as the said 2 RA 112.2011 in SA 119.2011 provision is exempted from the operation. According to the learned counsel, Section 88-B of the Tenancy Act does not exempt operation of Section 85-A of the Tenancy Act. Section 85-A of the Tenancy Act is a part of Chapter VIII and the same is not exempted. In view of that, the observations therein about the inapplicability of Section 85- A of the Tenancy Act constitutes an error apparent on the face of record. The learned counsel submits that the trial Court has observed in its Judgment that the status of the present review petitioner/applicant was that of a tenant. In view of that, the issue of tenancy has to be decided by the Tenancy Court U/s 85-A of the Tenancy Act and the provisions of Section 85-A of the Tenancy Act are not exempted from the operation of the Act in respect of the lands owned by the Trust. According to the learned counsel, this is an error apparent on the face of record. 3. The learned counsel further contends that even in the plaint, the plaintiffs had accepted the present review petitioner as a tenant and in view of that, no such issue was framed. 4. Mr. Korhalkar, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1,3 and 4 supports the order. 5. The jurisdiction of this Court while entertaining the 3 RA 112.2011 in SA 119.2011 review petition U/s 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is in a very narrow compass. The same is not akin to an appellate jurisdiction. 6. The review petitioner in the Second Appeal claimed his rights on the basis of the fact that the review petitioner inherrited the tenancy of her husband. In light of that, it was observed that Section 40 of the Tenancy Act does not apply. It was not canvassed before this Court in Second Appeal that the defendant/present review petitioner is a tenant in her own capacity. No such issue to that effect is also framed by the trial Court. It was in view of the fact that the present review petitioner claimed herself to have inherrited the rights of tenancy and as Section 40 of the Tenancy Act does not apply being a trust property, it is observed that Section 85-A of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable. The plaint was amended by the plaintiffs and by virtue of said amendment the plaintiff had claimed that the original tenant has died and the review petitioner claims her right pursuant thereto. 7. In the order passed in the Second Appeal, Section 14 of the Tenancy Act has been wrongly quoted in place of Section 40. As discussed above, it also does not transpire that any issue was framed regarding the status of the present review petitioner as a tenant nor in the Appeal memo of the Second 4 RA 112.2011 in SA 119.2011 Appeal, the review petitioner claimed herself to be the tenant in her individual capacity. On the contrary, during the course of arguments in Second Appeal, it was argued that the review petitioner has inherrited the rights of tenancy. 8. In view of the above as no case of error apparent on the face of record is spelt out, the review petition is rejected. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/RA 112.2011 in SA 119.2011