Delhi High Court
Hemant Gulati vs Chandan Jain & Ors. on 24 July, 2013
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24th July, 2013
+ CM(M) No.1293/2011 & C.M. No.20114/2011
HEMANT GULATI .....Petitioner
Through Mr.V.K. Gulati, Adv.
versus
CHANDAN JAIN & ORS .....Respondents
Through Mr.N.K. Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner Hemant Gulati in the above said matter has filed the
present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the
order dated 29th August, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, in Suit No.124/2010, whereby the
application under Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent for striking out
the defence of the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner had not
complied with the orders of payment of rent and deliberately flouting the
orders of the Court.
2. It is the admitted position that the respondent filed suit for possession
and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits against the petitioner. By
order dated 25th March, 2011, the petitioner was directed to make the entire
arrears of rent with effect from 1st May, 2010 to 5th March, 2011 by 5th May,
2011. The directions were also passed to the effect that in case the payment
is not made of such arrears of rent by the said date, the petitioner will be
liable to pay the interest @6% per annum from the date when the said rent
had fallen due till realisation and the petitioner shall continue to pay the rent
on or before 5th of each English calendar month till the disposal of the suit.
The petitioner admittedly failed to pay the rent due nor paid the subsequent
rent uptil date as directed by the Court. The respondent No.1 is a widow
lady and is only surviving of on her rental income. On the other hand the
petitioner is avoiding to pay the same for the last more than three years.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that despite
of expiry of the lease period, the petitioner has failed to hand over the vacant
possession to the respondent. He has simply raised the false and frivolous
defence which is nothing in the eyes of law. The defence raised by the
petitioner in the suit is that the rent agreement was for a period of 9 years i.e.
1st January, 2009 to 31st December, 2017. Therefore, the suit of the
respondent was not maintainable.
4. Scope of interference in the petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India :
(i) In Waryam Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Anr., AIR 1954 SC
45, the court observed; "This power of superintendence conferred by
Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in-"Dalmia Jain
Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee", AIR 1951 CAL 193 (SB)
l(B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in
order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their
authority and not for correcting mere errors."
(ii) In Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad and Ors., 2009 (1)
SCALE 71, Supreme Court held; "The jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution is limited. It could have
set aside the orders passed by the Learned trial court and Revisional
Court only on limited ground, namely, illegality, irrationality and
procedural impropriety".
(iii) In State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Samar Kumar Sarkar, JT 2009
(11) SC 258 Supreme Court held; "10. Under Article 227, the High
Court has been given power of superintendence both in judicial as
well as administrative matters over all Courts and Tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
It is in order to indicate the plentitude of the power conferred upon the
High Court with respect to Courts and the Tribunals of every kind that
the Constitution conferred the power of superintendence on the High
Court. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court
is not as extensive as the power conferred upon it by Article 226 of
the Constitution. Thus, ordinarily it will be open to the High Court, in
exercise of the power of superintendence only to consider whether
there is error of jurisdiction in the decision of the Court or the
Tribunal subject to its superintendence."
(iv) In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta (AIR 1975
SCS 1297) the Court again reaffirmed that "the power of
superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 being
extraordinary was to be exercised most sparingly and only in
appropriate cases. High Court's function is limited to see that the
subordinate court or Tribunal functioned within the limits of its
authority. The Court further said that the jurisdiction under Article
227 could not be exercised as the cloak of an appeal in disguise."
(v) In Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Anr. Vs. Pratapsing
Mohansing Pardeshi Deceased through his Heirs and Legal
representatives, JT 1995(7) SC 400, Apex Court observed; "The
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot
assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or
wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of
duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice,
where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court
interferes."
5. During the course of argument, it was specifically asked to the
petitioner to show the registered lease deed for nine years as alleged by him,
however, he failed to produce such document. It appears to the Court that
the petitioner is deliberately and intentionally not paying the rent due from
1st May, 2010 till date nor has handed over the peaceful possession of the
suit property to the respondent. Thus, the question of any inference in the
impugned order does not arise.
6. There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 29 th August, 2011
passed by the trial court. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
JULY 24, 2013
