Smt. Sangeeta vs Smt. Anita Arora
2014 Latest Caselaw 4303 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+
       C.M.(M) No.827/2014 and C.M.Nos.14909/2014 (Stay) and
       14910/2014 (Exemption)

%                                                  09th September, 2014

SMT. SANGEETA                                                 ......Petitioner
                          Through:       None

                          VERSUS

SMT. ANITA ARORA                                           ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not meant to

be exercised in routine but are meant to be exercised only when grave

injustice is caused by an impugned order of the trial court. As per the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), certain orders are made appealable and

certain orders are not made appealable. Once the orders are not appealable,

it is only when grave injustice is caused the powers under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India are exercised.

2. The facts of the present case are that there is a judgment and decree

dated 06.5.2014 for possession and mesne profits against the

petitioner/tenant and the impugned order dated 13.8.2014 only directs that

the petitioner/tenant because she is staying in the suit/tenanted premises,

must naturally pay rent for the period of her stay in the suit/tenanted

premises as she cannot stay in the suit/tenanted premises without paying any

rent/user charges. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned

order, much less for exercise of my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 KA