1. This is an application for review of an order dated 25-2-1969 passed in writ petition No. 107 of 1966 by which the orders of the Custodian General and that of the Custodian were quashed on the ground that they had misinterpreted the provisions of Rule 14(3) to Section (2)(a) of the Rules framed under the Evacuee's Administration of Property Act. The main ground on which I had allowed the writ petition was that the provisions of Section 2(a) defined allotment and distinguished a lease from an allotment, whereas Rule 14(3) of the Rules applied only to allotment and not to lease. My attention at that time does not appear to have been drawn to a specific provision of law namely sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 14 which runs thus:—
“The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the cancellation of a lease and in that case all references in that sub-rule to allotment and allottee shall, respectively, be construed as references to lease and lessee.”
2. The effect of this sub-rule is that all the provisions of Rule 14(3) would automatically apply to leases also. In these circumstances therefore the order of the Tribunal against which the writ was sought cannot be said to have suffered from the infirmities pointed out in my judgment. It is therefore clear that my judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
3. The Bombay High Court in a similar case reviewed its own order and pointed out that where a specific provision of law was not pointed out to the Court at the time of passing of the order such an order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify a review. This case is reported in AIR 1960 Bom 485.
4. For these reasons, therefore, my order dated 25-2-1969 in Writ Petn. No. 107 of 1966 (J & K.) Mohd. Syed Baba v. Custodian General, is reviewed and recalled and this application is allowed. The writ petition shall now be placed for rehearing before me on merits on a date to be fixed by the Deputy Registrar.
5. Application allowed.