Devinder Kumar vs Sant Lal Thru L.R'S
2004 Latest Caselaw 1194 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This petition challenges the judgment dated 19.9.2003 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 117/2000 whereby the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that he has no locus standi to maintain the appeal against the order dated 14.1.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Controller allowing the petition of the landlord under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and giving benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act to the petitioner. It also allowed the petition under Section 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(h) of the Act.

2. Facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as follows:-

"......the premises was let out to respondent No. 1 about 30 years back at the rate of Rs. 70/- p.m. excluding electricity charges for residential use. However, it is alleged that the respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 about two years back without written consent of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the respondent has been in arrears of rent which he has failed to pay despite demand legal notice dated 29th July, 1991 and the arrears are due since 1st December, 1990. It is also alleged that the premises was let out for residential purpose to respondent No. 1 but the same is being used by respondent No. 2 without consent of the petitioner. It is further alleged that none of the family members of the respondent No. 1 has been residing in the tenanted premises for a period of 6th months immediately before the filing of the petition. The petitioner has also alleged that the respondent No. 1 has acquired vacant possession of residential quarter No. 8, Block A-5, P and T quarters near Passangipur Village, New Delhi."

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a tenant in his own right and merely because his father has been allotted alternative accommodation, namely, Quarter No. 8, Block A-5, P and T Quarters, Passangipur Village, New Delhi and has shifted his family to that place and also obtained a ration card, PW-2/1, the petitioner could not be evicted.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment under challenge. From the testimony of PW-1, Amrit Lal, it appears that the tenant has shifted to Quarter No. 8, Block A-5, P and T Quarters, Passangipur Village, New Delhi, and that the premises in question was not being used for residential purposes. No suggestion was given to this witness that the tenant is residing at the premises - Quarter No. 8, Block A-5, P and T Quarters, Passangipur Village, New Delhi. PW-2, Satya Narian, LC from the Ration Office has proved photocopy of the Ration Card, Exhibit PW-2/1 wherein the first respondent has been registered at Serial No. 194 and his residential address shown as quarter No. A-5-A/4, P and T, Janak Puri. RW-1, Rattan Chand in his cross-examination admits that he had shifted to Quarter No. 8, Block A-5, P and T Quarters, Passangipur Village, New Delhi and his family has been staying with him there for the last eight to ten years. RW-2, Ishwar Das has admitted in his cross-examination at the tenant has shifted to House No. 2534, Shadipur along with his family.

5. From a re-examination of the material on record, I find that the Rent Controller has correctly ordered eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. As regards the Tribunal had held that the petitioner herein has no locus standi to prefer an appeal since no appeal has been preferred by his father, the original tenant. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner herein was a tenant in his own right.

6. In this view of the matter, I see no defect in the reasoning of the learned Rent Control Tribunal which needs to be interfered with. The present petition before this court is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and scope of this court is very narrow and as has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s Bhojraj Kunwarji Oil Mill and Ginning Factory and Anr. Vs. Yograjsinha Shankersinha Parihar and Ors. , Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. an M/s India Pipe Fitting Co. Vs. Fakruddin M.A. Baker and Anr. . The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has made it clear that the High Court's power of superintendence cannot be invoked to correct the error of fact or even of law. What is to be seen by the High Court is whether the subordinate court has acted within jurisdiction or not?

7. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the judgment under challenge gives adequate reason for arriving at its conclusion and suffers from no infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. CM(M) 797/2004 and CM APPL. 7815/2004 are dismissed.