* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:20.04.2012.
+ C.R.P. 49/2012 & CM No. 7051-53/2012
NASREEN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.N. Gupta, Adv.
versus
HARI KISHAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Impugned order is dated 04.11.2011. The objections filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) filed by the Objector Nasreen against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2009 had been dismissed. This was after trial and after evidence had been led by the respective parties.
2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed by Hari Kishan against Maqsood Ali. He was the sole defendant. This was a suit for possession. It had been decreed in faovur of the decree holder. This was on 11.11.2009. The objections came to be filed by the present petitioner namely Nasreen on 15.07.2010. Contention in the objection petition is CRP 49/2012 Page 1 of 5 that the Objector was inducted as a tenant by Smt. Sunita wife of Narender at which time the Objector had also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as security which was a refundable amount; no rent receipt had been issued; previous owner Sunita had sold this property on 19.04.2006 to the decree holder Hari Kishan and the Objector had become a tenant under Hari Kishan i.e. new purchaser. Admittedly no document of proof showing her as tenant in the aforenoted premises has been placed on record in the course of evidence which was led before the executing Court to prove her objections. This has also been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. Contention of the Objector that the rent receipts were not being issued; on a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the alleged tenant/objector has any other proof of her status as tenant in the aforenoted property i.e. telephone bill, electricity connection (as her contention is that she is living in the suit premises since the year 2005), no such document is available with the objector. Further contention in the objection petition is that one Anil a Court Bailiff had come in April, 2010 to execute the warrants of attachment at which time alone the objector learnt about this decree dated 11.11.2009 and the present CRP 49/2012 Page 2 of 5 objections were accordingly filed. Attention has been drawn to the documents which have been filed and proved in the court below. These are Ex. OW-1/A, Ex. OW-1/B, Ex. OW-1/C and Ex. OW-1/D. These four documents merely mentioned the name of Nasreen and at one place the names of two persons namely Nazia and Fareen have been mentioned as daughters of Alim Ahmed; this is on their election card; nothing else can be depicted from the aforenoted documents i.e. to establish the vehement submission urged in the objection petition that the objecotor/Nasreen is a tenant in her individual capacity in the aforenoted premises.
3 Evidence led by the respective parties had been adverted to in the correct perspective. The aforenoted documents were considered and repelled as they did not establish this submission of the objector that she was a tenant in her individual capacity since March, 2005. Issuewise findings were returned by the trial Court. Oral and documentary evidence filed in the court below to establish that the premises had been given on rent by Sunita to the judgment debtor Maqsood Ali; Sunita had thereafter sold this property to the present decree holder i.e. to Hari Kishan; Sunita had categorically denied the suggestion that Nasreen had CRP 49/2012 Page 3 of 5 taken this flat on rent; documentary evidence had only established the fact that Nasreen was the wife of Alim Ahmed and as per the election card of her daughter, they were living in the said house but it did not in any manner establish the submission that she had an individual status as that of a tenant in the suit property; her right to continue in the suit property did not arise. In this background, the Court had correctly appreciated that the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2009 does not in any manner suffers from any infirmity. Objections of the decree holder were rightly considered and discarded.
4 This court is conscious of the fact that it is sitting in its powers of revision; unless and until there is a manifest or patent error which is evident on the fact of the record interference by the High Court is not called for. The Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 2507 Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, the Apex Court in this context had noted herein as under:-
"The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 25-B (8) is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the CRP 49/2012 Page 4 of 5 Rent Controller on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law'. For that limited purpose it may enter into re-appraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached that conclusion on the material available.Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray the lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller 'not according to law' calling for an interference under proviso to sub-Section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act. A judgment leading to miscarriage of justice is not a judgment according to law."
5 In this background, impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 20, 2012
A
CRP 49/2012 Page 5 of 5