Hriday Bhushan Doomra vs Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd.
2007 Latest Caselaw 340 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. A concurrent finding of fact has been returned by the learned Additional Rent Controller and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal against the petitioner.

2. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against Hirdey Bhushan Doomra, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Petition invoked Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. It was inter alia alleged that initially a license was granted by the petitioner to Hirdey Bhushan Doomra in respect of 3 rooms admeasuring 141/2' x 101/2', 61/2' x 161/2' and 14' x 6', which was later on converted into a lease. It was stated that the tenant encroached upon an open area adjoining the licensed area. Later on, by consent, license was converted into a lease. Alleging non payment of rent unauthorized subletting without the consent of the landlord as also unauthorized constructions, eviction was prayed for.

3. Qua the persons who were stated to be unauthorizedly inducted it was stated that their names were Ram Saran Ahuja, Baijnath and K.K.Pilai.

4. After trial, learned Trial Judge, vide order dated 22.7.2002, allowed the eviction petition on all 3 counts, but giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the D.R.C. Act 1958 passed a decree for eviction on ground of unauthorized subletting and substantial damage to the property. Needless to state, benefit under Section 14(10) was granted to the tenant to restore the premises to the original position.

5. Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal was assigned to Shri S.M.Chopra, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

6. Vide order dated 6.4.2005, learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal concurred with the findings of the learned Additional Rent Controller.

7. In the petition, various grounds have been urged to contend that the decisions of the courts below is contrary to law.

8. I need not note the extensive arguments advanced at the Bar by learned Counsel for the petitioner for the reason the same required this Court to reappreciate the evidence.

9. It is settled law that a finding of fact, more so when there is a concurrent finding of fact by lower courts cannot be questioned by reappreciating the evidence. Of course, if it can be shown that a material evidence has been ignored or that wrong conclusions have been drawn from the admitted evidence, it would be permissible for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Within the limited scope of inquiry permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, suffice would it be to note that the entire argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner was predicated on an agreement dated 1.8.1982, Ex.RW1/A. It was urged that the suit property was let out in terms of Ex.RW1/A and in terms of said agreement not only was full rent paid but a power was vested in the petitioner to further lease out the tenanted property as also renovate the same.

11. Case of the landlord was that 4 separate areas/halls were let out vide lease dated Ex.RW1/A and that the suit premises was other than the premises let out vide Ex.RW1/A. Case of the landlord was that suit premises was initially given under a license dated 18.9.1967 with effect from 21.2.1967, Ex.AW2/4. The said license was subsequently converted into a lease.

12. Both the courts below have heavily relied upon the description of the property in Ex.RW1/A and Ex.AW2/A to conclude that the property mentioned in Ex.AW2/A was different than the property referred to in Ex.RW1/A.

13. I have perused Ex.AW2/A. The dimensions of the halls mentioned therein tally with the dimensions given in the eviction petition and as noted in para 2 above.

14. Dimensions of the 4 open spaces/halls mentioned in Ex.RW1/A are 38' x 15', 15' x 7', 17' x 17' and 23' x 7'.

15. This, in my opinion is enough to reject the defense of the petitioners vis-a-vis the issue whether the suit property was governed by the lease dated 1.8.1982 Ex.RW1/A.

16. But, I may note that there is other documentary evidence consisting of admissions of the petitioner which shows that different properties were taken by the petitioner under different leases.

17. Ex.PW-1/1 is the letter addressed by Hirdey Bhushan Doomra to the Deputy Assessor and Collector, MCD on 4.5.1984. It is in response to a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 4.5.1984. The notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi proposes to enhance the rateable value of the properties in possession of Hirdey Bhushan Doomra.

18. In the said letter, Hirdey Bhushan Doomra has categorically written that he had taken 2 different sets of property from the landlord. Dimensions of the 2 properties tallies with the dimensions noted in the license agreement dated 18.9.1967, Ex.AW2/4 and the lease agreement dated 1.8.1982, Ex.RW1/A.

19. Ex.PW2/R2 is a letter written by Hirdey Bhushan Doomra to the landlord acknowledging unauthorizedly occupying a strip admeasuring 10' x 7' and agreeing to pay lease rent for the same @Rs.2/- per sq.yds. with effect from 10.9.1981.

20. There is another interesting aspect which I may note.

21. The eviction petition has been filed as per a proforma prescribed. Vide serial No. 18(a) of the proforma, grounds on which the eviction of the tenant is sought have been pleaded.

22. In sub-para (ii) of para 18(a) it has been pleaded as under:

That the respondent tenant has after this 9th June 1952 sublet assigned or otherwise parted with possession of different portions to different persons without the consent in writing of the petitioner. The names of some of the sub-tenants who have been unauthorizedly inducted are Shri Ram Saran Ahuja, Shri Baijnath and Shri K.K.Pilai.

23. In the written statement filed there is no response to said sub para (ii).

24. While filing the written statement sub-para (i) and sub-para (iii) of para 18(a) have been replied to.

25. The learned Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record to arrive at the findings.

26. I have briefly noted, what according to me would be the material documentary evidence to bring home the point that the Courts below have acted within the scope of their respective jurisdiction.

27. I find no merits in the petition. The same is dismissed.

28. LCR be returned.

29. No costs.