Delhi High Court
Gursharan Kaur vs Trilok Singh on 12 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 745/2014
% 12th August , 2014
GURSHARAN KAUR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K.Kashyap, Advocate.
VERSUS
TRILOK SINGH ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
filed by the landlord impugning the concurrent judgments of the Additional
Rent Controller and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, dated 5.6.2013
and 29.4.2014 respectively, by which the eviction petition of the
petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (in short 'DRC Act') has been dismissed. Eviction petition under
Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act is filed when there is default in payment of
rent in spite of service of a legal notice.
CMM 745/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. A reading of the impugned judgments shows that there were
two aspects which were urged before the courts below, one aspect with
respect to whether rate of rent was Rs.2500/- per month or Rs.1500/- per
month and the second aspect was with respect to the period of default. On
both these aspects it has been held against the petitioner/landlord because the
courts below have held that the rate of rent is Rs.1500/- per month and not
Rs.2500/- per month as contended by the petitioner/landlord and it has been
held that there is no default from August, 2009 till September 2011.
3. On a query made to the counsel for the petitioner/landlord, it is
stated that the petitioner/landlord is not disputing the aspect that the rate of
rent is Rs.1500/- per month and that there is no default with respect to period
from August 2009 to September 2011. If that be so, I fail to understand that
what is left to be argued in this petition under Article 227 impugning the
judgments of the courts below.
4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner/landlord argues that
actually what is being argued by the petitioner/landlord is that the
respondent/tenant had failed to comply with the order passed under Section
15(1) of the DRC Act, and which order is an interim order to make payment
of pendente lite rent and confirmed at the time of passing of the final
CMM 745/2014 Page 2 of 4
judgment, inasmuch as, the respondent/tenant has not paid rent pursuant to
this order under Section 15(1) of DRC Act for the months of May 2012,
July 2012 and August 2012.
5. I note that this aspect is not mentioned either in the judgment of
the Additional Rent Controller or in the judgment of Additional Rent
Control Tribunal, and surely this must be because this aspect must not have
been urged before any of the courts below.
6. Once an aspect is not found to have been urged before the
courts below of an alleged default in non-compliance of an order under
Section 15(1) (and with respect to which in any case I do not find any basis
for accepting the same) it is not permissible for the first time in a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to urge an aspect which has
not been argued before both the courts below.
7. There was a Section 39 in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
pertaining to second appeals and which second appeal could be filed to this
Court only on a substantial question of law. This Section 39 has been
deleted by Act 57 of 1988 with the clear object that regular second appeal
should not be filed and the orders of the court below should be interfered
CMM 745/2014 Page 3 of 4
with only in extreme circumstances under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
8. Therefore, powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India cannot be exercised with respect to a point of an alleged default in
compliance of the order under Section 15(1) when it is not so argued before
any of the courts below and is sought to be argued only for the first time
before this Court in this petition.
Dismissed.
AUGUST 12, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
