Maya Sharma & Anr. Vs. Shashi Goyal & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No. 721 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7039 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7039 of 2000
Petitioner: Maya Sharma & Anr.
Respondent: Shashi Goyal & Ors.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No. 721 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7039 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7039 of 2000
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 137 – Review – Eviction – Bona fide requirement – Question of fact – Concurrent findings of Courts below – No interference likely in SLP – Undertaking to vacate by 31.1.2001 given – No error disclosed. Held that review petition is dismissed. (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. All the Courts had concurrently found that respondent nos. 1 to 4 had proved their case for bona fide requirement of suit premises. It is pure finding of fact which could not be interfered with in special leave petition which was dismissed and it was at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner that time to vacate the premises was given upto 31st January, 2001. As the review petition shows, appropriate undertaking is also filed by the petitioner to vacate by that time, though it is stated that it is without prejudice to the contentions in the review petition. As the review petition does not disclose any patent error of law emanating from the order sought to be reviewed, the review petition is liable to be dismissed on merits and is accordingly dismissed.
1. We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. All the Courts had concurrently found that respondent nos. 1 to 4 had proved their case for bona fide requirement of suit premises. It is pure finding of fact which could not be interfered with in special leave petition which was dismissed and it was at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner that time to vacate the premises was given upto 31st January, 2001. As the review petition shows, appropriate undertaking is also filed by the petitioner to vacate by that time, though it is stated that it is without prejudice to the contentions in the review petition. As the review petition does not disclose any patent error of law emanating from the order sought to be reviewed, the review petition is liable to be dismissed on merits and is accordingly dismissed.
