1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.130/2011 SULOCHANA SHAHAKAR AND ORS ..VS.. STATE OF MAH AND ANOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.G. Bhamburkar, adv for petitioner Shri Bhoot adv for respondent no.2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : AUGUST, 16 2011. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Collector Akola on 15.6.2009 in a review application under section 21(2-a) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. The petitioner is the tenant. An application was filed by the respondent landlord before the Rent Controller for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the petitioner. The Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the respondent no.2 by an order dated 28.3.2000 and granted permission to respondent no.2 to issue quit notice to the petitioner under clause 13(3)(ii)(vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. The order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal. The rent Control Appellate Authority, however by the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2 The petitioner filed a review application seeking a review of the order dated 15.6.2002. The same was allowed by an order passed by the Collector on 21.3.2005 and the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 15.6.2002 was set aside. The respondent no.2 approached this court in Writ Petition No.2599/2008. This court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Collector on the review application on 9.6.2003 and remand the matter to the Additional Collector for deciding the review application afresh as none of the parties were heard before the Additional Collector had allowed the review application. After remand of the matter to the Additional Collector, Akola, the review application was decided on merits and by the impugned order dated 15.6.2009 the review application filed by the petitioner was rejected. The orders passed by the Rent Control Authorities and the order passed on the review application are challenged by this petition. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the orders do not suffer from any illegality whatsoever as the authorities have recorded clear findings of facts while granting permission under clause 13(3)(ii)(vi),(vii) of the Rent Control Order. The findings recorded by both the authorities do not suffer from any error much less a jurisdictional error 3 so as to interfere with the same. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there could not have been two reviews against the order passed by the Collector on 15.6.2002 in the appeal is misconceived and is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that though an order was passed on the review application on 9.6.2003, that order was set aside by the judgment passed by this court on 5.2.2009 in Writ Petition No.2599/2008 and after the remand of the matter, the same review application was re- decided by the appellate authority on 15.6.2009. In these set of facts, it cannot be said that the Additional Collector had reviewed an order dated 15.6.2002 on two occasions. The the petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP