Order Reserved on: 11.02.2026 Order Delivered on: 19.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC No. 7 of 2026 (Review Application) in WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022 Smt. Kamla Devi & others ......Petitioners Versus Shri Jagdish Kumar …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi and Mr. Hemant Singh Mahra, learned counsel for Respondent. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present Review Application (MCC No. 7/2026) has been preferred by the review Applicants under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 469 of 2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the concurrent findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority allowing the release application of the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were affirmed. 2. The review applicants seek reconsideration of the aforesaid judgment primarily on the ground that the judgment under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. The principal contention raised is with regard to interpretation of the first proviso to Section 1 WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar Ashish Naithani J. 21(1)(a) of the Act, and it is urged that issuance of six months’ prior notice by a subsequent purchaser-landlord is mandatory even after expiry of three years from the date of purchase. 3. Learned counsel for the review applicants submits that this Court, while deciding the writ petition, erred in holding that after expiry of the three-year embargo contemplated under the proviso, no prior notice is required. It is contended that the proviso comprises two independent conditions, namely, (i) a moratorium of three years from the date of purchase, and (ii) a mandatory requirement of six months’ notice, and that non-compliance thereof vitiates the release proceedings. Reliance has been placed upon judicial precedents to contend that the requirement of notice is mandatory in nature. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue sought to be raised in the present review stood fully considered and decided in the judgment under review. It is argued that no error apparent on the face of record has been demonstrated, nor has any new material been brought on record. According to the respondent, the present application merely seeks re-hearing of the writ petition on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on the review application and perused the records. The principal ground urged in the present review relates to interpretation of the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The very same issue had been raised by the petitioners in the writ proceedings and was examined in detail by this Court while rendering the judgment dated 16.12.2025. 6. The Court had recorded the undisputed factual position that the respondent purchased the property in the year 2000 and instituted the release application in the year 2014, well beyond the statutory embargo of three years. Upon consideration of the statutory scheme, this Court held that once the embargo period stood exhausted, the subsequent purchaser- 2 WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar Ashish Naithani J. landlord became entitled to invoke Section 21(1)(a) without the necessity of a prior six months’ notice. 7. The contention now advanced in review, namely, that the requirement of six months’ notice continues even after expiry of the three- year period, is essentially a reiteration of the very argument which stood considered and rejected in the judgment under review. The review applicants have failed to demonstrate any patent or self-evident error in the reasoning adopted by this Court. Interpretation of a statutory provision, particularly where more than one view may be possible, is a debatable issue and cannot be reopened in review jurisdiction. 8. The statutory framework and the legal position were examined in the judgment under review, and this Court had recorded that no binding precedent mandating a contrary interpretation had been shown. Reconsideration of precedents at the stage of review would amount to rehearing of the matter on merits, which lies outside the permissible scope of review. 9. It is further evident that the present review application does not disclose discovery of any new and important material which was not within the knowledge of the applicants at the time of hearing of the writ petition. No procedural illegality, jurisdictional error, or manifest injustice has been demonstrated. The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship were affirmed in the writ proceedings, and no ground permissible in law has been made out to reopen those findings in review. 10. The law is well settled that review cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, nor can it be invoked for the purpose of re-arguing the case or seeking a fresh decision on the same grounds. The present application, in substance, seeks reconsideration of issues already adjudicated, which is impermissible in exercise of review jurisdiction. ORDER 3 WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar Ashish Naithani J. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error apparent on the face of record has been made out warranting exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The Review Application (MCC No. 7 of 2026) in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 469 of 2022lacks merit. The Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed. Ashish Naithani, J. SB 4 WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar Ashish Naithani J.