IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1027 of 2010() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.754/2009 Dated 25/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 2. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, MANATHAVADY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- P.N.RAMESH BABU, S/O.NEMACHANDRA GOWDER, PUTHIYEDAM (H), PAYYAMPALLY P.O., MANANTHAVADY-670 646. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P. No.1027 2010 in R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the appellants in R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 for review of the judgment dated March 25, 2010 dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. 2. Petitioners were aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery in A.S. No.44 of 2003 allowing the respondent to recover rent arrears in respect of the building belonging to him and rented out to the State to accommodate Town Employment Exchange. When the proposal came, respondent offered to rent out the building for rent at the rate of `.4/- per square foot per month as per Ext.A1, letter dated 25.11.1995 and consequent to that, petitioner No.4 informed respondent as per letter dated 29.11.1995 that a building having a plinth area of 1000 sq.ft. is needed. There was also further correspondences between petitioners and the respondent. Exhibit A3 marked in the trial court is a letter dated, R.P. No.1027 of 2010 in R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 2 :- 30.11.1995 from petitioner No.2 according sanction to take the building of respondent on rent. As per that letter petitioner No.2 approved the lease arrangement (rent being `.4/- per square foot per month for 1000 sq.ft.) till alternative accommodation is made available by the P.W.D. for the Town Employment Exchange. On that basis the building was rented out to the petitioners. Respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent arrears at the above rate. Trial court dismissed the suit. Respondent took up the matter in appeal. Appellate court observed that interpretation given by the learned Munsiff to Ext.A4 is not correct and that so far as the rent originally fixed, there was no dispute between parties. Appellate court relied on Ext.A4 and granted a decree in favour of the respondent. That judgment and decree were challenged by the petitioners in R.S.A. No.754 of 2009. It was contended on behalf of petitioners that interpretation given by the appellate court to Ext.A4 is not legally sustainable and that a reading of the relevant document would reveal that there was only a tentative agreement for fixing rent at the rate of `.4/- per square foot per month subject to procedural formalities to be complied by the PWD including fixation of rent. Stress was given to the contention that Ext.A4 is subject to procedural formalities to R.P. No.1027 of 2010 in R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 3 :- be complied by the PWD regarding fixation of rent. This Court was not inclined to accept that contention of petitioners. This Court found that appellate court has correctly interpreted Ext.A4 and that rent payable to the respondent is at the rate of `.4/- per square foot per month until alternative accommodation is provided by the PWD for accommodating the Town Employment Exchange. This Court further found that the statement in Ext.A4 (extracted in the judgment under review) did not mean that rate of rent was yet to be fixed. In the circumstances the Second Appeal was dismissed at the threshold. That dismissal is sought to be reviewed by the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader has contended that there was no binding agreement between parties in the sense that Ext.A4 was not signed by the respective parties and hence it was not binding on the petitioners. In the review petition certain substantial questions of law are also raised for consideration such as whether in the absence of signed agreement between the parties petitioners are liable to pay rent (as stated in Ext.A4), whether respondent can claim rent more than what is fixed by the petitioners and whether the order in RCP No.10 of 1997 wiped out entire arrears. 3. The contentions raised are not sufficient ground for R.P. No.1027 of 2010 in R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 4 :- review under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). That is because a review is not a substitute for an appeal or, an opportunity for a re-hearing of the matter. A review can be entertained only on the limited grounds stated in Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code. Here certain substantial questions of law are raised in the petition for review. This court while disposing of the Second Appeal pointed out that petitioners did not pout out any provision of law or authority holding that in the absence of a written agreement petitioners are not liable to pay rent as per Ext.A4. A court of review cannot entertain those contentions. Contentions raised by the petitioners in the review petition are to be raised in an appeal against the judgment and decree of this Court. In the circumstances the review petition cannot be entertained. Review Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv