M/S. Sms Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. Burfi Devi
2013 Latest Caselaw 5789 Del

.*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Order delivered on: December 16, 2013

+                        RC.REV. 434/2013

      M/S SMS REALTECH PVT LTD                      ..... Petitioner
                   Through   Mr.Sanjiv K. Jha, Adv.

                         versus

      SMT BURFI DEVI                                        ..... Respondent
                    Through           None

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the eviction order dated 24th May, 2013 passed against the petitioner by the ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Act in respect of one godown/shop situated at H.No. 214, Ward No. 8, Ground Floor, Gali Loharan, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises").

3. It was stated in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises is required bonafidely by the respondent for her occupation as the respondent is 68 years old (when the eviction petition was filed) and is suffering from disk problem in the backbone and on account of which, the respondent

cannot climb stairs and has acute pain and trouble in moving and going upstairs, on 1st floor or any other floor, therefore, the respondent requires the tenanted premises for herself and she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation with her in Delhi or anywhere except the tenanted premises. It was also stated that the respondent wants to keep one family member with her who can live with her and look after her in better way as the respondent is suffering from old age diseases.

4. In the leave to defend application, the petitioner besides other things averred that the tenanted premises is inhabitable and the same cannot be used as residence for the respondent. It was contended that the respondent had failed to disclose the extent of accommodation available with her on the first floor and on the ground floor in the entirety. It was averred that the respondent relied on a sham medical record which alleged that the respondent is suffering from Osteoporosis and that the same does not mention that the mobility of the respondent is restricted or has restricted the respondent from climbing stairs. Even otherwise, the medical record relied upon by the respondent was not a conclusive document as it declared "this is only a professional opinion and should be correlated in the light of clinical findings". The petitioner also stated that the tenanted premises is not required by the respondent as the respondent has suitable and sufficient accommodation available to her for her residence.

5. In the reply to the application for leave to defend, the respondent denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner and re-affirmed her stand as averred in the petition. While in the rejoinder, among other things, the petitioner contested in detail the medical report of the respondent.

6. The learned Trial Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the ownership of the tenanted premises and that the relationship of landlord- tenant was also not disputed. Accordingly, the aspect of ownership qua the tenanted premises went in favour of the respondent.

7. On the issue of bonafide requirement, the learned Trial Court observed that the MRI report alongwith film that was filed by the respondent suggested that the respondent was suffering from osteoporosis and disc bulges. The learned Trial Court observed that keeping in view the age of the respondent, her ailments and the authorities relied upon by the respondent, her requirement to live at the ground floor of the property could not be said to be mere wish or desire. Rather the said requirement was genuine and bonafide as it is a ground reality that a person of such age would certainly feel comfortable and convenient to reside on the ground floor than on the first floor.

8. It was observed by the learned Trial Court that the contention of the petitioner that the tenanted premises which is a godown is not habitable and as such cannot be used as residence, did not have much force. It was further observed that the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has failed to disclose the extent of accommodation available with her is wrong, keeping in mind the site plan filed by the respondent which clearly depicted the accommodation at the ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor and the 3rd floor.

9. With these observations, the learned Trial Court passed the eviction order against the petitioner, and aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

10. The issue before this Court is, whether said findings call for any interference by this Court in revisionary jurisdiction in view of the facts and

circumstances of the present case or not. It is settled law and it has been held from time to time by various courts that the revision under Section 25B(8) cannot be regarded as a first appeal and nor can it be as restricted as the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The High Court would have jurisdiction to interfere if it is of the opinion that there has been a gross illegality or material irregularity which has been committed or the Controller has acted in excess of his jurisdiction or has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. In other words, this Court has only to see whether the learned Rent Controller has committed any jurisdictional error and has passed the order on the basis of material available before it. A finding of fact arrived at by the Controller would not be interfered with by the High Court unless it can be shown that finding has been arrived at by misreading or omitting relevant evidence and this has resulted in gross injustice being caused. If none of the aforesaid circumstances exist the High Court would not be entitled to interfere with the order of the Controller in exercise of its jurisdiction under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act.

11. 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 reappraisal 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 would have reached on the material available before him.

12. The Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR (1999) SC 100 held as under:-

"6. .....The above proviso indicates that power of the High Court is supervisory in nature and it is intended to ensure that the Rent Controller conforms to law when he passes the order.

The satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the records of the case must be confined to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is "according to the law". In other words, the High Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in passing the order under Section 25-B. It is not permissible for the High Court in that exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding on the materials available."

13. The only argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that medical documents filed by the respondents/landlord about her illness are forged and manipulated thus, these cannot be considered and therefore, the finding of the learned trial court are liable to set aside.

14. I have perused the said document, these have been issued by prominent hospitals. The genuineness of the same in the present nature of proceedings is strictly applied in the eviction proceeding which is filed on account of bonafide requirement, the petition otherwise is also maintainable if the requirement is bonafide and genuine. It is not denied by the petitioner that the respondent is an old lady and she has produced documents in order to show her prima facie case of her illness. Therefore, full enquiry and strict sense is not required in the present proceedings. The findings arrived therefore, cannot be reversed in revision jurisdiction.

15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is granted six months time from today to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the H. No. 214, Ward No. 8, Ground Floor, Gali Loharan, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. During

this period, the petitioner shall not sublet or create third party interest in the suit premises.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE DECEMBER 16, 2013