The Supreme Court has observed that High Courts while excersing powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding forum unless its perverse.
The Division-Bench comprising of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose noted that High Courts can't dwell deep into facts of a case like an Appellate Court and re-appreciate evidence.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondents-tenants were running a chemist shop from a premise owned by the appellant-landlord. The appellant initiated eviction proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging certain portions of the subject premise was sub-let to three medical practitioners and two other firms without consent of the landlord. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant could not establish that the premise was sub-let in favour of the medical practitioners and the firms. Later, the Appellate Tribunal accepted that the facts of the case disclosed subletting and reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and eviction was thus allowed.
When Delhi High Court was approched, the Court invoking its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India decided against the appellant-landlord.
The Counsels for landlord submitted that when the final fact-finding forum had found that there was sub-letting of the subject premise, the High Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction ought not to have reversed it. It was asserted that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal was based on evidence and ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court exercising power under Article 227. They relied on slew of judgments dealing with the nature and scope of occupation in a rented property of persons not being tenants but inducted by the latter which would attract the mischief of sub-letting.
- Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors. Vs. Idrish Ali Laskar, 2018 Latest Caselaw 46 SC
- Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors. Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors., 2009 Latest Caselaw 876 SC
- M/S Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998 Latest Caselaw 67 SC
- Smt. Rajbir Kaur & ANR Vs. S. Chokesiri & Co, 1988 Latest Caselaw 209 SC
- Dipak Banerjee Vs. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, 1987 Latest Caselaw 189 SC
- Jagan Nath (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors, 1988 Latest Caselaw 165 SC
- Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. Vs. H.C. Sharma & Ors, 1987 Latest Caselaw 329 SC
Supreme Court's Observation
The Court at the outset observed that there is no contention with respect to occupation of a portion of the subject premise by the medical practitioners.
Noting that the High Court was conscious of the restrictive nature of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but however, had overstepped by re-appreciating evidence, while considering the perversity of the findings of the Appellate Tribunal.
It stated that once it was admitted that the medical practitioners occupied a part of the subject premises, the onus was on the respondents to negate the allegation of sub-letting. On perusal of the evidence on record it was observed that the medical practitioners had individual cabins and telephone connections in the premises. The order of the Appellate Tribunal was thus upheld and findings the High Court order was quashed with regard to over-stepping of jurisdiction.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
