Smt. Nirmala Devi vs Maharishi Balmiki Mandir
2014 Latest Caselaw 3571 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CM(M) No. 784/2013 and C.M. No.12051/2013 (stay)
%
                                                             6th August, 2014

SMT. NIRMALA DEVI                                   ......Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. Gourav Gupta, Advocate.



                           VERSUS

MAHARISHI BALMIKI MANDIR                                  ...... Respondent
                 Through:                Mr. Mukesh Birla, Advocate.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           There existed a Section 39 in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,

which provided for filing of a second appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal

against the order of an Additional Rent Controller, but this Section 39

providing for filing of a second appeal was deleted by Act 57 of 1988.

Therefore, now a second appeal does not lie, and consequently a petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed as if a second

appeal is filed, more so in the facts of the present case.


C.M.(M) No.784/2013                                                Page 1 of 2
 2.           The admitted facts are that the petitioner/tenant was sued for

eviction on the ground of subletting and in such a petition on account of

failure to deposit interim rent, defence of the petitioner/tenant was struck off.

Not only the defence of the petitioner/tenant was struck off and as a result of

which no evidence could be led by the petitioner/tenant, the petitioner/tenant

did not even cross-examine the witness of the respondent/landlord PW-2

Dilip Kumar who filed his affidavit as Ex.PW2/1. Once there is no cross-

examination, ordinarily the statement made in examination-in-chief can be

accepted by the Court subject of course to exceptions, and which exceptions

I do not find exist in the present case.

3.           In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned

judgments decreeing the petition for subletting, and the same are not

required to be interfered with, because, powers under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India are discretionary and are used where only grave

injustice is apparent.

4.           Dismissed.




AUGUST 06, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne