Delhi High Court
Nasreen vs Hari Kishan & Ors on 20 April, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:20.04.2012.
+ C.R.P. 49/2012 & CM No. 7051-53/2012
NASREEN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.N. Gupta, Adv.
versus
HARI KISHAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Impugned order is dated 04.11.2011. The objections filed under
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
„Code‟) filed by the Objector Nasreen against the judgment and decree
dated 11.11.2009 had been dismissed. This was after trial and after
evidence had been led by the respective parties.
2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed by Hari Kishan
against Maqsood Ali. He was the sole defendant. This was a suit for
possession. It had been decreed in faovur of the decree holder. This was
on 11.11.2009. The objections came to be filed by the present petitioner
namely Nasreen on 15.07.2010. Contention in the objection petition is
that the Objector was inducted as a tenant by Smt. Sunita wife of
Narender at which time the Objector had also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-
as security which was a refundable amount; no rent receipt had been
issued; previous owner Sunita had sold this property on 19.04.2006 to
the decree holder Hari Kishan and the Objector had become a tenant
under Hari Kishan i.e. new purchaser. Admittedly no document of proof
showing her as tenant in the aforenoted premises has been placed on
record in the course of evidence which was led before the executing
Court to prove her objections. This has also been fairly conceded by the
learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. Contention of the
Objector that the rent receipts were not being issued; on a specific query
put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the alleged
tenant/objector has any other proof of her status as tenant in the
aforenoted property i.e. telephone bill, electricity connection (as her
contention is that she is living in the suit premises since the year 2005),
no such document is available with the objector. Further contention in
the objection petition is that one Anil a Court Bailiff had come in April,
2010 to execute the warrants of attachment at which time alone the
objector learnt about this decree dated 11.11.2009 and the present
objections were accordingly filed. Attention has been drawn to the
documents which have been filed and proved in the court below. These
are Ex. OW-1/A, Ex. OW-1/B, Ex. OW-1/C and Ex. OW-1/D. These
four documents merely mentioned the name of Nasreen and at one place
the names of two persons namely Nazia and Fareen have been
mentioned as daughters of Alim Ahmed; this is on their election card;
nothing else can be depicted from the aforenoted documents i.e. to
establish the vehement submission urged in the objection petition that
the objecotor/Nasreen is a tenant in her individual capacity in the
aforenoted premises.
3 Evidence led by the respective parties had been adverted to in the
correct perspective. The aforenoted documents were considered and
repelled as they did not establish this submission of the objector that she
was a tenant in her individual capacity since March, 2005. Issuewise
findings were returned by the trial Court. Oral and documentary
evidence filed in the court below to establish that the premises had been
given on rent by Sunita to the judgment debtor Maqsood Ali; Sunita had
thereafter sold this property to the present decree holder i.e. to Hari
Kishan; Sunita had categorically denied the suggestion that Nasreen had
taken this flat on rent; documentary evidence had only established the
fact that Nasreen was the wife of Alim Ahmed and as per the election
card of her daughter, they were living in the said house but it did not in
any manner establish the submission that she had an individual status as
that of a tenant in the suit property; her right to continue in the suit
property did not arise. In this background, the Court had correctly
appreciated that the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2009 does not in
any manner suffers from any infirmity. Objections of the decree holder
were rightly considered and discarded.
4 This court is conscious of the fact that it is sitting in its powers of
revision; unless and until there is a manifest or patent error which is
evident on the fact of the record interference by the High Court is not
called for. The Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 2507 Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, the Apex Court in this context had noted
herein as under:-
"The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under
Section 25-B (8) is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor so
wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into
appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it
is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of
facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the
Rent Controller on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law'.
For that limited purpose it may enter into re-appraisal of
evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or
is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could
have reached that conclusion on the material available.Ignoring the
weight of evidence, proceeding on wrong premise of law or deriving
such conclusion from the established facts as betray the lack of
reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller
'not according to law' calling for an interference under proviso to
sub-Section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act. A judgment leading to
miscarriage of justice is not a judgment according to law."
5 In this background, impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity.
Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 20, 2012
A
