Delhi High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Parkash Devi on 20 April, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (Main) No.43 of 2002
% 20.04.2010
RANJIT SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alok Lakhanpal & Mr. Pankaj Kishore
Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
PARKASH DEVI ......Respondent
Through: Mr. G.D. Tehri, Advocate.
Reserved on: 8th March, 2010
Pronounced on: 20th April, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was tenant in respect of premises No.F-14/28, Second Floor, Model
Town-II, Delhi-110009. A suit for eviction was filed by the respondent/landlady on the
ground of non-payment of rent. While the landlady alleged that rate of rent was Rs.950/-
per month, the petitioner alleged that rate of rent was Rs.300/- per month. Both the sides
led evidence on the issue of rate of rent. After considering the evidence, Additional Rent
Controller vide judgment dated 6th November, 2001 came to conclusion that the rate of
rent was Rs.950/- per month. An order under Section 15 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act
was passed by Additional Rent Controller for deposit of arrears of rent at this rate and
since the arrears of rent were deposited, benefit under Section 14 (2) of Delhi Rent
Control Act was given to the tenant.
2. The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal before the Additional Rent Control
Tribunal against the order of Additional Rent Controller dated 6th November, 2001 on the
issue of rate of rent. The Additional Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated
4th December, 2001 dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of Additional Rent
Controller that the rate of rent was Rs.950/- per month. After dismissal of the appeal by
the Additional Rent Control Tribunal and after grant of benefit under Section 14 (2) of
Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner filed an application for review before the
Additional Rent Controller for reviewing the judgment. Obviously, the review was not
maintainable and was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller. Against dismissal of
this review, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional
Rent Control Tribunal.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of
Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissing appeal of petitioner against order of learned
Additional Rent Controller dismissing review and also against the order dismissing
appeal.
4. It is settled law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court has
no power to act as a court of second appeal and a petition under Article 227 can be
entertained only where a sub-ordinate court had exceeded jurisdiction or has failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The sole contention raised by the petitioner is that the
petitioner had got hold of additional evidence after dismissal of the appeal filed before
Additional Rent Control Tribunal and this additional evidence showed that the rent of
premises was Rs.300/- per month and not Rs.950/- per month. There is no provision
under law for taking on record additional evidence after dismissal of the appeal and there
is no provision under law that a review can be entertained by the trial court after an
appeal has been preferred and dismissed.
5. The present petition filed by the petitioner is a misuse of judicial process and
another step taken by the petitioner to protract the litigation. The petition is liable to be
dismissed with cost being a totally frivolous petition and is hereby dismissed with cost of
Rs.25,000/-.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
APRIL 20, 2010
'AA'
