Babu Lal vs Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt Ltd
2012 Latest Caselaw 1099 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 16.02.2012.

+ CM(M) 89/2012 & CM Nos.1343-44/2012 & 2693/2012


BABU LAL                                                  ..... Petitioner
                             Through    Mr. C.S. Rathore, Adv.

                    versus


SIR SOBHA SINGH & SONS PVT LTD                             ..... Respondent
                   Through  Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Order impugned before this Court is the judgment dated

06.09.2011 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT)

which has endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC)

dated 04.02.2008 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Sir

Sobha Singh & Sons seeking eviction of their tenant Babu Lal under

Section 14 (1)(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been

decreed. Premises in dispute is a servant quarter behind Gurdwara Singh

Sabha, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi measuring 14'X18' feet which as

per the averments in the eviction petition had been given by the landlord

to Budha (father of the petitioner) who was in the service and

employment of the landlord company; Budha had since expired;

premises are in unauthorized occupation of his son Babu Lal; the ground

of eviction as contained in Section 14 (1)(i) of the DRCA had been

pleaded in the eviction petition.

2. The written statement filed by the tenant has been perused; his

contention in the written statement is that he is living in the demised

premises in his own independent capacity; what is that independent

capacity has not been disclosed the entire written statement; defendant

has claimed ownership by way of adverse possession as well. Not a

whisper of this submission i.e. of adverse possession has been made by

the tenant in his evidence which had been led in the court below. In fact

even today before this Court he has not advanced any argument on this

submission. His contention before this Court is that his defence right

from the inception was that although his father Budha was an employee

of the landlord but the premises in dispute had not been given to Budha

in his capacity as an employee of the landlord as the present petitioner

(who is the son of Budha) is living there in his independent capacity

since the last 30 years. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that what is

that independent capacity in which the defendant is living in the

demised premises which admittedly belong to the landlord has not been

disclosed. The contention of the petitioner is that these premises is

actually a tin shed/jhuggi and even does not have a pucca structure; the

tenant is living there since more than three decades. This submission

now mooted before this Court that these premises is a tin shed/jhuggi

which does not have a pucca structure does not find mention in the

written statement filed by the tenant.

3. Oral and documentary evidence was led before the trial Court.

Four witnesses had been examined on behalf of the tenant of whom two

were the summoned witnesses i.e. officers from NDMC and L&DO who

had proved the perpetual lease deed Ex. PW-4/1 and lease agreement

Ex. PW-4/2 in favour of the landlord and challan Ex.PW-3/P1 raising a

house tax demand upon the landlord. There is also no dispute to the fact

that the landlord is the owner of the disputed premises; the defence of

the defendant being that he is living in the demised premises in his own

independent capacity but as noted supra what is that independent

capacity has neither found mention in the written statement and nor does

it find mention in his evidence. Affidavit by way of evidence of Babu

Lal has been perused. In the evidence it has vehemently been stated that

the demised premises are a jhuggi covered with wooden balis; his father

had in fact encroached upon this portion of the land; this part of the

evidence of RW-1 is contrary to his pleadings i.e. to the averments made

in the written statement wherein he has specifically stated that he is

living in the demised premises in his own independent capacity; it was

never his contention that his father had encroached upon these premises

which was actually a government land. Evidence beyond pleadings

cannot be viewed.

4. This court is sitting in its powers of superintendence under Article

227 of the Constitution of India; unless and until there is a patent

illegality or a manifest injustice caused to be one party qua the other

interference is not called for; this court is not a third fact finding court; it

is not a substitute for the appellate forum. This Court is also conscious

of the fact the right of second appeal has since been abrogated as the

Section 39 of the DRCA has been deleted and the powers

superintendence of the High Court are not a substitute for an appellate

forum. The concurrent findings of fact returned by the two courts below

in no manner suffer from any infirmity.

5. The landlord is admittedly the owner of the suit premises. On the

basis of evidence both oral and documentary adduced before the trial

court clear and categorical finding had been returned that Budha (father

of the petitioner) was in the service and employment of the respondent;

this fact has been admitted by the petitioner himself; clear finding had

also been returned that these premises had been given to Budha for

residential purpose because he was an employee of the respondent; after

his death, his son is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises; he

has no right, title or interest in the suit premises. In these circumstances,

the eviction order passed against the tenant and in favour of the landlord

by the two fact finding courts does not call for any interference. No

perversity or illegality has been pointed out before this Court which

calls for an interference.

Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 16, 2012 A