Smt. Sunita Chauhan @ Gayatri Devi vs Shri Virender Singh Gusain
2014 Latest Caselaw 3295 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                     CM(M) No.593/2013 and C.M. No.8840/2013

%                                                        23rd July, 2014

SMT. SUNITA CHAUHAN @ GAYATRI DEVI                       ......Petitioner
                 Through: None.



                           VERSUS


SHRI VIRENDER SINGH GUSAIN                  ...... Respondent
                  Through: Respondent in person.



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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent

Control Tribunal (South), Saket, New Delhi dated 18.4.2013 by which the

Additional Rent Control Tribunal in first appeal under Section 38 of the

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') set aside

the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 26.5.2012 dismissing the eviction


C.M.(M) No.593/2013                                              Page 1 of 4
 petition filed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. As per the provision of

Section 14(1)(h), if a tenant acquires vacant physical possession of

alternative accommodation, he loses protection of the Act and is liable to be

evicted.

2.           The Tribunal has arrived at a finding of existence of alternative

accommodation on the basis that the tenant/petitioner herein had got a ration

card showing her residence at the alternative premises being 48, DDA Flats,

CSP, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and once that was so, onus was upon

the petitioner/tenant to show that she had not shifted to the other address. In

fact, the petitioner was guilty of concealing the original ration card because

the factum of issuing of ration card at the address of the alternative premises

at 48, DDA Flats, CSP, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was got proved by

the landlord/respondent by means of summoning of the witnesses from the

Government with the record of issuing of the ration card. For this purpose

the officials were summoned from the Food and Supply Department of

Government of NCT of Delhi as PW-2 and PW-3. DW1/1 is the copy of the

ration card which was produced by the tenant herself, of course, without

producing the original.

3.           In view of the aforesaid, the Additional Rent Control Tribunal

has given the following conclusions:-
C.M.(M) No.593/2013                                               Page 2 of 4
      "18. I do not agree with the observation of the Ld. Rent Controller
     that the ration card cannot be a proof of residence. In support of this
     contention, the landlord had relied upon, and rightly so, observations
     to such effect in Hukum Chand and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
     34 (1998), Delhi Law Times 66.

     19. Given the evidence led, it is clear that the petitioner
     has successfully proved that the tenant had obtained a ration card
     indicating herself to be the head of the family (with her husband and
     others described as members of the said family) for the address of the
     other flat some time in February, 2005. From this, it naturally
     follows that she was proclaiming herself to be ordinarily a resident of
     the said address. With this proof having been brought on record,
     the burden shifted to the tenant to justify issuance of the
     ration card and give appropriate explanation. The explanation
     given in the pleading has not been supported by any concrete
     material in the form of evidence nor the said             theory     is
     believable. It rather stands belied and punctured. Thus, the
     tenant has failed to discharge her burden to explain the
     circumstances.

     20. In above facts and circumstances, the petitioner must be held to
     have brought home his case for eviction under section 14 (1) (h)
     DRC Act."                        (underlining added)


4.            A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lies

only if there is a clear cut perversity in the impugned judgment of the Rent

Control Tribunal. If two views are possible, this Court will not interfere in

the exercise of its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because two views are possible, the

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed to

question one possible and plausible view taken by the court below.
C.M.(M) No.593/2013                                                Page 3 of 4
 5.           In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 23, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne