Ram Beti vs Sumesh Prashad
1996 Latest Caselaw 913 Del

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.

(1) The present petition, filed by the petitioners, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by Shri H.S. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 2.12.95 and confirmed in appeal by Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, Rent Controller, Delhi vide order dated 10.1.1996. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition lie in a narrow compass. Shri Sumesh Prasad (respondent No.1) had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against one Shri Roop Kishore. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings said Shri Roop Kishore expired leaving-behind three sons and one widow. However, the landlord i.e. said Shri Sumesh Prashad (respondent No.1) imp leaded only Shri Ram Kishore, one of the sons of the deceased Shri Roop Kishore as the respondent and a decree for eviction was passed in those proceedings against said Shri Ram Kishore. Thereafter execution was filed on 28.9.93 and in the execution proceedings warrant of possession was ordered to be issued. In the execution, the petitioners filed objections. The petitioners were directed to lead evidence in support of their objections. They availed of a number of opportunities but did not produce any evidence with the result that their evidence was closed on 29.9.95 and the objections were also dismissed vide order dated 13.10.95.

(2) The petitioners/objectors moved an application for the review of order dated 13.10.95 on the ground that the petitioners/objectors were misled as they had noted the wrong date of hearing. The above said application of the petitioners/objectors for the review of order dated 13.10.95 was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on 2.12.95. Against the above said order the petitioners filed an appeal (RCA No. 1086/95 - Smt. Ram Beti & Ors. Vs. Shri Sumesh Prasad & Ors.) before the learned Rent Control Tribunal, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in limine vide order dated 10.1.96.

(3) Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents and only respondent No.l, who entered appearance through his Advocate, has contested the present petition. '

(4) THAT. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for die respondent No,l at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On behalf of the petitioners arguments were advanced by Shri Y.P. Ahuja, Advocate whereas on behalf of respondent No.1 the matter was argued by Shri P.R. Thakur, Advocate. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the non-appearance of the petitioners on the date(s) fixed was due to the fact that the petitioners had noted the wrong date and as such they could not contact their counsel. He further submitted that even the registered letters sent by the counsel were not received by them. It was urged by him that in the presence of the above facts the learned Additional Rent Controller was not justified in dismissing the application of the petitioners for the review of order dated,13.10.95.

(5) The learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The ambit and scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and the same cannot used for the purpose intended by the petitioners. On merits, the learned counsel for respondent No.l submitted that the petitioners have no case and the present petition filed by the petitioners, virtually is an abuse of the process of law and the petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

(6) As already stated, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As per settled law, culled out from various decisions, the High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and is to be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. As regards findings of fact of the subordinate court, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to only examining whether the subordinate court has kept itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching the findings of fact. The High Court, while exercising such powers cannot, therefore, quash the findings of a subordinate court merely on the ground that the same are erroneous, but could do so only if the subordinate court came to its conclusions without any evidence or upon a misreading of evidence, or if its conclusions were perverse. In my above views I stand fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in case Babhutmal Vs. Laxmibai reported as . Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in case Satya Narayan Laxmi Narayan Hegde and others Vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumaley reported as .

(7) If the above criterion is applied to the present petition, the same in my opinion, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be entertained in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because of the fact that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on 2.12.95 and upheld by the learned Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 10.1.96, dismissing the appeal in limine.

(8) On merits also the petitioners, in my opinion, have no case. The main reason advanced by the petitioners is that on 7.7.95 they had wrongly noted the next date of hearing as 11.12.95 instead of 11.8.95 as a result of which they could not appear before the Court on 11.8.95. The above stand taken by the petitioners is devoid of substance because from a perusal of the material on record it is apparent that on 7.7.95 when the matter was adjourned to 11.8.95 the petitioners/objectors were not present in the Court and only the learned counsel for the petitioners/objectors was present in the Court on that date. The fact that on 7.7.95 none of the petitioners/objectors were present is established on the basis of the grounds of appeal taken before the Rent Control Tribunal wherein, in para 2 (at page 15 of the paper book) it is unequivocally stated that on 7.7.95 none of the objectors was present. The age old saying that "men may lie but not the circumstances" is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Shri Y.P. Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioners had appeared on behalf of the objectors on 29.9.95 before the learned Additional Rent Controller and submitted that he had sent a registered letter to the petitioner/objector Rakesh Kumar stating therein that no one had been appearing for the last six months and that the objectors were not taking any interest in prosecuting the objections. Thus according to the counsel for the petitioners the objectors/petitioners were not appearing for the last six months prior to September, 1995 and were not taking any interest in prosecuting the objections filed by them. In the presence of the above facts the stand taken by the petitioners that on 7.7.95 they had noted down a wrong date as 11.12.95 instead of 11.8.95 cannot reasonably be accepted. Further from the documents/material on record, more particularly the impugned order, it is apparent that ample opportunities were given to the petitioners for adducing evidence in support of their objections and when the learned Additional Rent Controller was satisfied that the petitioners/objectors were neither appearing nor adducing evidence in support of their case, he, in my opinion, rightly and justifiably closed the evidence of the petitioners/objectors and no fault can be found with the same.

(9) Moreover, the impugned order dated the 2nd December, 1995, confirmed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in appeal vide order dated 10.1.96 has been passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on an application, filed by the petitioners for the review of order dated 13.10.95. The Supreme Court in case Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma has held that there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made: it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found: it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. It cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous because that would be a province of the Court of appeal. A power of review, as per settled law, cannot be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all kinds of errors committed by the subordinate Court. Thus, in the light of the above settled legal position, the impugned order passed on 2.12.95 and confirmed by the Court of Rent Control Tribunal suffers from no infirmity and calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the. Constitution of India:

(10) In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed with costs.