1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION [Review] NO. 602/2011 IN WRIT PETITION No. 4548/2005. Smt. Rajni wd/o Maroti Kalaskewar and others. -VERSUS- Smt. Nalini Madhukar Sajjanwar and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 02.09.2011. Heard Shri A. Shelat, learned Counsel for the applicants/original petitioners/tenants. Prayer is to review the judgment dated 19.07.2010 delivered by me in Writ Petition No. 4548/2005, on the ground that this Court then has not properly appreciated the controversy involved, as the direct precedent in the shape of AIR 2001 SC 3580 (M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. .vrs. M/s. Amrit Lal and Co. and another), could not be pointed out to it. Attention is invited to paragraph no.5 of 2 the review application to show the circumstances in which the landlord has approached the Civil Court. It is further pointed out that the proceedings before the Rent Controller were being prosecuted and hence, the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.37 of its judgment in case of M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai (supra), is squarely applicable. In facts of the matter considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears that proceedings before Rent Control Authority were filed before 01.02.1988. On that day the Act underwent an amendment and premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3500/- ceased to be subjected to Rent Control Legislation. The rent of premises there was Rs. 8625/- per month. Landlord then filed Civil Suit under general law and it is in this background the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that the amendment had not made any difference and Rent Controller had the jurisdiction. But then the Hon'ble Apex court gave liberty to respondent-landlord to withdraw one of the proceedings i.e., either proceedings before the Rent Controller or then proceedings before the Civil Court. It is obvious that same relief therefore, could have been obtained by the 3 landlord on same facts from different forums on same cause. The proceedings were therefore, found parallel. Here the landlord has filed proceedings before Civil Court pointing out challenge to his title and therefore, invoking Section 111[g] of the Transfer of Property Act. It is obvious that, if he succeeds in proving the forfeiture, the relationship of landlord and tenant would not be in existence, and therefore, Rent Control proceedings become infructuous. In case landlord fails in establishing necessary facts to show such forfeiture, the relationship continues, and therefore, he has to seek necessary relief within the forecorners of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 from Rent Controller. Thus the scope and purpose of both the proceedings and remedies, is distinct and independent. Rent Control case and Civil Suit are not on same cause. Civil Suit became necessary due to subsequent conduct of petitioner/tenant. Landlord cannot obtain relief which he is seeking in Civil Court from Rent Controller and vice-versa. The proceedings here are, therefore, 4 not parallel. The above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, has no application here. Review as filed is, therefore, found to be misconceived. Hence, the same is rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd