* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:18.04.2012
+ CM(M) 1502/2011 & CM No.23675/2011 AND
CM(M) 1506/2011 & CM No.23697/2011
JP JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Adv.
versus
RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. B.B. Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Order impugned is dated 01.12.2011 vide which the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had reversed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) and had held that the rate of rent qua the disputed premises is Rs.374/- per month; the ARC had drawn a conclusion that the rate of rent is Rs.250/- per month.
2 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CM (M) Nos. 1502/2011 & 1506/2011 Page 1 of 5 RCT could not have gone into a fact finding as an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) lies only on a substantial question of law; contention of the non-applicant/respondent is that the RCT can well examine the evidence if the conclusion drawn by the ARC is a perverse conclusion.
3 It is in this background that the arguments have been heard of the respective parties.
4 This Court is sitting in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and interference in fact finding of the Court below is warranted only if there is a perversity. 5 A perversity has been noted in the finding returned by the RCT. 6 Record discloses that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord against the firm M/s Munshi Lal and Sons through its partners/proprietor; contention was that a shop on the ground floor bearing No. 4098-99, Nai Sarak, Delhi had been tenanted out to the tenant at a monthly rate of Rs.411.40 per month. It is not in dispute that initial rate of rent was Rs.374/- per month and thereafter by way of statutory increase, it has been enhanced to Rs.411.40 paise. 7 Record further shows that a compromise arrangement had been CM (M) Nos. 1502/2011 & 1506/2011 Page 2 of 5 arrived at in suit No. 769/1980 in the High Court which was a suit for partition inter-se between the two brothers J.P. Jain and M.P. Jain and in terms of the order of the High Court dated 29.05.1981 it had been agreed that the rent of the premises would be apportioned between two brothers; 60% of the rent would be paid by J.P. Jain and 40% would be paid by M.P. Jain. Attention has been drawn to documents Ex. RW-1/2 & Ex. RW-1/4. Ex. RW-1/4 is a letter written by the tenant J.P. Jain to the erstwhile landlord (Pradeep Khanna) informing him that in view of the aforenoted judgment of the High Court, the front portion of the shop has fallen to his share and rear portion of the shop has fallen to the share of his brother M.P. Jain and in these circumstances, a request was made to the erstwhile landlord (Pradeep Khanna) to issue separate rent receipts in respect of the front portion and in respect of the back portion. This request of the tenant had been considered and accepted by the erstwhile landlord who had vide Ex. RW-1/4 informed J.P. Jain that a separate rent receipt for the front portion will be issued. 8 In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding returned by the RCT reversing the finding of the ARC that the rate of rent payable by Mr. J.P. Jain is Rs.374/- per month is a CM (M) Nos. 1502/2011 & 1506/2011 Page 3 of 5 perversity; although admittedly the landlord was not a party to the inter- se arrangement arrived at in the suit for partition between the two brothers before the High Court, yet this arrangement was specifically accepted by the erstwhile landlord who had agreed to issue separate rent receipts for the front and back portions. In this scenario, if the petitioner is a honest pay-master and was continuously paying his share of rent which was Rs.250/- per month, the eviction petition filed by the new landlord (the present respondent) seeking eviction of his tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent where the contention raised by the landlord is that the rate of rent is Rs.374/- per month and not Rs.250/- per month would gravely prejudice and affect the rights of the tenant. This has not been considered in the correct perspective by the RCT while reversing the finding of the ARC. The documentary evidence i.e. Ex.RW-1/2 and Ex. RW-1/4 has been ignored. This amounts to a perversity.
9 There is no dispute that the premises have been tenanted out as a whole to the partnership firm; however in view of the specific arrangement arrived at between the two brothers which has been specifically accepted by the erstwhile landlord (second landlord only CM (M) Nos. 1502/2011 & 1506/2011 Page 4 of 5 stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile landlord), the present petitioner was liable to pay only Rs.250/- per month for his portion. The impugned judgment is set aside. The order of the ARC stands restored.
10 With these directions, petition disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 18, 2012
A
CM (M) Nos. 1502/2011 & 1506/2011 Page 5 of 5