Arun Kumar Bhatara vs Leelawati
2013 Latest Caselaw 2296 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                     Date of Judgment:16.05.2013
+     CM(M) 504/2013

      ARUN KUMAR BHATARA                     ..... Petitioner
                  Through Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with
                          Mr. S.M. Chugh and Ms. Shoma
                          Chaudhari, Advs.
                  versus
      LEELAWATI                         ..... Respondent
                  Through Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

CM No.7611/2013

1 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) No.504/2013 & CM No. 7610/2013 (Stay)

2 Order impugned is the order dated 05.04.2013 which was the order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 05.10.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlady (Leelawati) under Sections 14 (1)(b) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) had been decreed.

3 Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by the landlady on the aforenoted two grounds. Contention of the landlady was that the original tenant (Arun Kumar Bhatra) had sub-let the

premises to one Smt. Seema who had started the business of designing and tailoring. The original tenant was doing the business as sole proprietor of M/s Shivam Cement.

4 Parties had led evidence before the ARC. The landlady had examined herself as PW-1. The respondent had produced two witnesses in defence. Both the Courts below had affirmed the finding that the partnership deed which had been set up by the tenant was not an authentic document; testimony of RW-1 & RW-2 and their cross- examination in this context had been relied upon to return this fact finding. It was noted that RW-1 in his cross-examination did not even know the date when the partnership was commenced; whether it was executed on a stamp paper or a plain paper; whether it was notarized. RW-1 had admitted that no tax returns had been filed qua the said partnership. This witness was examined in December, 2010 and the partnership deed relates back to the year 2004. No accounts of the partnership were produced. The same was the version of RW-2. The ARC had thus concluded that the partnership deed created and filed on record (Ex.DW-1/1) by the tenant was a sham document. This fact finding was affirmed by the RCT. The RCT had in fact noted that under Section 38 of the DRCA, the order of the ARC is assailable only on a question of law and this being a fact finding did not call for any interference even by the RCT as there was no glaring error or perversity on the face of the record of the ARC. Thus the defence set up by the tenant that there was no subletting and presence of Seema in the

tenanted premises was only by virtue of aforenoted partnership deed (Ex. DW-1/1) had been rejected.

5 The findings of both the Courts below are based on a cogent appreciation of the record. The powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are undoubtedly wide; however interference is called for only if there is manifest perversity or illegality which is apparent from the face of the record. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the right of second appeal has now been abrogated from the DRCA.

6 In this background, the impugned order decreeing the eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA and giving benefit to the tenant of the provisions of Section 14 (10) of the DRCA to carry out the repairs to the damage caused to the tenanted premises in terms of findings returned under Section 14 (1)(j) of the DRCA do not call for any interference.

7 Even otherwise, before this Court arguments on Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA have alone been pressed.

8     Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.



                                               INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MAY 16, 2013
A