ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In a suit for eviction on the basis of the tenant having created a sub-tenancy the trial court decided in favour of the landlord. The judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed in first appeal and then in second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on April 6, 1992 passed in Second Appeal No. 757 of 1990. Surprisingly, the learned Judge later reviewed his own order under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC and overturned the judgment he had passed on merits. This was not permissible to the learned Judge at all in view of the strict terms of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Arena of facts was outside the sphere of a second appeal, what to say about a review proceeding arising from that order. We, thus, have no option but to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order restoring in law the order dated April 6, 1992, leaving it open to the respondent to challenge the said order, if so advised, by a special leave petition in this Court. It is thus so ordered. We make it clear though that we are not even remotely opining on the correctness of the order dated April 6, 1992.
3. In the circumstances of the case, we do not pass any order as to costs.
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2863 of 1993