Delhi High Court
Gurdayal Mangi vs Arvind Sharma & Anr. on 16 February, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: January 11, 2009
Date of Order: February 16, 2010
+ CM(M) 18/1999
% 16.02.2010
Gurdayal Mangi ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramesh Mangi, petitioner/ applicant in person
Versus
Arvind Sharma & Anr. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Alok Bachawat & Mr. Jainul Abdin, Advocates
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. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed an order dated 10th November 1998 whereby an appeal of the
petitioner against an order passed by learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 12th
May, 1998 was dismissed by Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT).
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding present petition are that the
petitioner (deceased) Gurdayal Mangi was a tenant in respect of premises bearing
number E-86, South Anarkali on a monthly rental of Rs.700/-. The premises in question
consisted of two room, kitchen, latrine and bathroom. The tenancy was created by way
of a written document dated 14th January, 1991. The respondent herein filed an eviction
petition under Section 14(1) (a) (b) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC). The eviction
petition was dismissed by learned ARC in respect of grounds under Section 14(1)(a) and
(j), however, the eviction petition was allowed by learned ARC on the ground of
subletting under Section 14(1)(b).
3. Before learned ARC the landlord (respondent herein) had taken the stand that
out of the two rooms let out to the petitioner, the petitioner parted with possession of
one of the rooms and let out the same to a sub tenant without his consent. The stand of
the tenant (petitioner herein) on the other hand was that the room was given to
CM(M)18/1999 Gurdayal Mangi v. Arvind Sharma & Anr. Page 1 Of 3
respondent no.2 at the instance of landlord himself for a period of 2/3 months and
thereafter the room was not vacated by respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 was a
relative of the landlord and the suit was filed by the landlord in collusion with the
respondent no.2.
4. The landlord had not denied that respondent no.2 was his relative but submitted
that he had strained relations with respondent no.2. The premises was not handed over
to respondent no.2 at his instance and the same was sublet by the tenant(petitioner
herein) to respondent no.2 without his consent.
5. The learned ARC had come to a conclusion that parting with possession of the
premises was not in dispute. The respondent had failed to prove that the part of the
premises was given to respondent no.2 with consent of the landlord much less written
consent. It was observed that the tenancy was not an oral tenancy but the tenancy was
created by way of a written agreement and if the tenant had parted with possession of
one room at the instance of landlord, he would have necessarily got a written document
prepared. It was also observed that the tenant alleged that the room was given only for
2/3 months but thereafter no endeavour was made by the tenant to get the room
vacated. No notice was served upon the subtenant or on the landlord for getting the
room vacated from the subtenant. The learned ARC did not believe the version put forth
by the tenant of parting with possession at the instance of the landlord after considering
the evidence of witnesses and observed that the story put forward by the tenant does
not inspire confidence.
6. In appeal the learned ARCT after going through the evidence of the witnesses
and documents upheld the order passed by the learned ARC. The learned ARCT
observed that the tenancy was created initially on 14th August, 1990 through a written
document. This tenancy was again renewed in February, 1991 by another rent
agreement which was executed between the parties in writing. In view of the fact that
the parties had created the tenancy and renewed it by way of written agreements, there
was no reason that the tenant could have parted with the possession of one room at the
instance of landlord without a written document of consent of the landlord. The learned
ARCT also did not believe the story of the petitioner.
7. It is settled law that this Court while entertaining a petition under Article 227 of
CM(M)18/1999 Gurdayal Mangi v. Arvind Sharma & Anr. Page 2 Of 3
the Constitution of India does not act as a Court of appeal and cannot upset the finding
of fact of the Court below on re-considering the evidence of witnesses. The learned ARC
and ARCT after going through the evidence of witnesses have come to a conclusion that
the petitioner had sublet the premises without consent of the landlord. The factum of
parting with possession is admitted. The only issue before learned ARC and ARCT was
whether part of the premises was given to respondent no.2 under instructions of
landlord or it was sublet. Both the Courts below, after considering the evidence and
material had come to a conclusion that the story put forth by the tenant (petitioner) was
not believable. Thus Court cannot substitute its own findings in place of findings of the
two Courts blow.
I find no force in the present petition. The petition is hereby dismissed without
there being any orders to costs.
February 16, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
CM(M)18/1999 Gurdayal Mangi v. Arvind Sharma & Anr. Page 3 Of 3
