1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1614 OF 2006 IN MCA ST.NO.20093/2005 IN W.P. NO.2577 OF 1992(D). (P.T.KANJWANI THR. G.P.KANJWANI ..Vs..S.K.JAIN THR. SMT. K.S.JAIN & OTH.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.G.Shukla, Advocate for Applicant. Shri M.R.Joharpurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 15, 2009. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing application for review of judgment in Writ Petition No. 2577 of 1992, decided on 1st February, 2005. The applicant contends that he came to know about the fraud played by the respondent upon the Court on 11.11.2005 and has filed this application on 30th November, 2005. This application has been opposed by the respondent by submitting that the delay is not properly explained. 2. I have heard both the learned counsel. 2 3. Since the applicant states that his counsel came to know of the fraud on 11.11.2005 taking the word of the applicant as correct, delay is condoned. The application is allowed. MISC.CIVIL APPLN.ST.NO.20093/2005. 4. This is an application for review of judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2577 of 1992, whereby this Court directed the Rent Controller to decide the application pending before him afresh in accordance with Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as appellate authority. It is applicant’s case that the order needs to be reviewed because of a wrong statement made before this Court which amounted to playing fraud on the Court. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the application that at the time of arguments before this Court the learned counsel for non-applicant represented before the Court that in Revenue Case No.131/A-71/1986-87 no notice was ordered and it was withdrawn on 16.06.1987 and that in view of this 3 submission High Court has passed order remitting the case back to the Rent Controller. This contention is not correct. Reference to disposal of Revenue Case No.131 of 1986-87 in paragraph 3 of judgment shows that it relates to reply filed before the Rent Controller wherein it was stated that Revenue Case No.131/1986-87 was instituted for fair rent and in the same no notice was ordered and it was withdrawn on 16.06.1987. Thus, this was not the statement made before this Court. 5. As far as this Court is concerned, in paragraph 9 it is observed that it also appears that the fair rent proceedings was merely filed and no notice was issued to the respondent-tenant by the Rent Controller in it. This has nothing to do with the incorrect observation of the Rent Controller that the rent was fixed in the year 1988 and therefore, question of fixing of fair rent did not arise. It has been pointed out that the Rent Controller did not record finding that the rent of the premises fixed in 1988 was sufficient and therefore, no inquiry was called for. Therefore, whether the matter was withdrawn or not, what 4 this Court has held is that the Rent Controller has not recorded findings that the rent allegedly fixed in 1988 was sufficient and therefore, fresh inquiry was required. 6. In view of this, even if arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant is taken at its face value (it cannot be so taken because they are not in tune with the record), the judgment dated 1st February, 2005 does not call for review. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.