S.N Phukan, C.J:— Six suits of the petitioners in Hotel Oberoi Cecil at Chaura Maidan, Shimla was requisitioned in the year 1965 by the Competent Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for accommodation of the army officers. By order dated 24.9.1982 vide Annexure P1, the Deputy Commissioner, assessed the rent at Rs. 1/- per sq. feet and thereafter fixed the rent for each suite separately. The army authority used to pay the rent accordingly without any objection. Thereafter, for the period from 1.1.1984 to 30.6.1984, the army authority sent a cheque for Rs. 29,049/- to respondent No. 3 i.e the Deputy Commissioner as payment of rent for the above suites, but instead of paying the rent by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioners he passed the impugned review order on 13.11.1985 vide Annexure P6 to the petition. He was of the opinion that the rent fixed earlier was on the higher side and, therefore, took suo muto action and reviewed the earlier order and fixed the rent, which was originally assessed in the year 1977. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, it has been averred that the Deputy Commissioner has the power of review and that in doing so he can decrease the rent earlier fixed.
3. It has also been averred that there is a provision of appeal. According to respondent No. 3, the rent fixed by the impugned order Annexure P6 is correct and justified and in consonance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act.
4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2, it has been stated that the amount as fixed earlier has been duly paid to the Deputy Commissioner by cheque, as stated above, but the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order-has not released the amount to the petitioners.
5. The first point to be considered is whether against the impugned order, an appeal is maintainable. From Section 10 of the Act, we are of the opinion that against the impugned order, no appeal is maintainable.
6. From Sub-sections 2A and 2B of Section 8 of the Act, we find that the Competent Authority can revise the rent fixed after five years. From this section, we are of the opinion that the intention of the Legislature is that in view of the acceleration of price, the rent fixed has to be revised every five years. In other words, the owner of the house is entitled to get the higher rent after every five years.
7. Regarding the power of review, there is no provision under the Act. The law is well settled in this regard that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. (see: Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273). We have perused the provision of the Act and we are of the opinion that even by implication it cannot be said that the authority fixing the rent has the power of review. Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, the order is liable to be set aside.
8. The apart, the Apex Court in Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)., (1995) 1 SCC 170 : AIR 1995 SC 455, in paragraph 12 of the judgment held that while considering the review petition, the Court has no power to re-appreciate the entire evidence and act as an Appellate Court. It was further held that even if the earlier findings were found to be erroneous, it would be no ground to review the same, as that would be the function of the Appellate Court.
9. From the impugned order, we find that respondent No. 3 has re-opened the entire matter and entered into evidence and also held that earlier order dated 24.9.1982 was erroneous. Therefore, this order is also illegal and not maintainable in law.
10. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure P6 is quashed. That rent for the period in question at the rate of Re. 1/- per sq. ft. as assessed by the earlier order dated 24.9.1982, was deposited in the Registry of this Court and subsequently by order of this Court, the amount was released to the petitioners on furnishing security. The security so furnished shall stand discharged and cancelled. The F.D.R be released.
11. No costs.
12. Writ Petition allowed.