Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Shri Ajay Saluja & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 577 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



                                                        Date of Order: February 02, 2010
+ CM(M) 150/2010
%                                                                           02.02.2010
     Rajesh Kumar Gupta                                             ...Petitioners
     Through: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate

         Versus

         Shri Ajay Saluja & Anr.                                    ...Respondents

Through: nemo

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?

ORAL

1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 16th January 2010

passed by learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the

petitioner herein against the order dated 30 th September 2009 passed by learned

ARC.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that an

eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 3rd January 2002. Against this

eviction order, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition before this Court.

The petitioner continued with this petition for quite some time and then withdrew the

revision petition seeking liberty to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum.

The landlord thereafter filed an execution of eviction order. In the execution petition,

the present petitioner preferred objections on account of jurisdiction of learned ARC

and on the ground that there was no notification in respect of the area where the

premises was situated and the ARC passed the order under Delhi Rent Control Act

without jurisdiction. The learned ARC considered the notifications under DRC Act and

CM(M) 150/2010 Rajesh Kr. Gupta v. Ajay Saluja & Anr. Page 1 Of 3 came to conclusion that the area where the suit premises was situated fell under the

notified area and dismissed the objections. Against this order, an appeal was

preferred by the petitioner before learned ARCT and the learned ARCT again went

through the entire pleadings and the notification and after hearing the parties and

passed a detailed judgment. The learned ARCT came to conclusion that the premises

in question was covered by the notification giving jurisdiction to ARC and there was

no force in the objections raised by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The

petitioner has now filed the present petition.

3. It is apparent that the whole effort of the petitioner has been just to prolong

the agony of the landlord who had obtained a decree of eviction on valid grounds in

2002. Firstly the petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court, pursued it for

quite some time and thereafter withdrew the same. The petitioner had not taken the

issue of jurisdiction of ARC in his response filed to the eviction petition. It is settled

law that an objection regarding jurisdiction, must be taken at the first instance. The

petitioner contested the eviction petition and submitted to the jurisdiction of learned

ARC. He thereafter filed a revision petition and there also the petitioner did not take

objections on the ground of jurisdiction. It is thereafter that this idea struck to the

petitioner that he should file objections against the execution taking the objection of

jurisdiction of ARC on the basis of some notification and the petitioner then filed

objections which were dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed. By this process,

the petitioner had able to retain the premises for more than eight long years after

passing of eviction decree.

4. It is settled law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court

does not act as a Court of appeal neither this Court has power to correct the errors of

facts as well as of law. This Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, cannot

indulge in re-appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence or correct the error in drawing

inference or errors of technical character. The power under Article 227 of the

CM(M) 150/2010 Rajesh Kr. Gupta v. Ajay Saluja & Anr. Page 2 Of 3 Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and is solely governed by the dictates

of judicial consciousness so as to prevent the orders passed beyond jurisdiction or to

see that the subordinate court or tribunal must act within the four walls of law and

act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and follow due process as laid

down by law.

5. In view of the concurrent findings of the two courts below given after

considering the notification relied upon by petitioner that learned ARC did not

jurisdiction, I find no reason to interfere with the order of learned Tribunal. The

present petition is a gross misuse of judicial process and is hereby dismissed with

costs of Rs.25,000/-.

February 02, 2010                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 150/2010          Rajesh Kr. Gupta v. Ajay Saluja & Anr.          Page 3 Of 3