SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) ADMIT.

( 2 ) AT the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE petitioner had filed an eviction petition against the respondent under section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The respondent is stated to have been inducted as a tenant in the year 1979 in respect of two rooms, verandah, kitchen, latrine and bathroom in respect of property at Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi for the purpose of residence at a monthly rent of Rs. 325/-, which is stated to have been enhanced to Rs. 700/- per month. In the month of December 1991, the respondent is stated to have surrendered a part of the tenanted premises and only retained one room, which was converted into a shop as per mutual agreement between the parties and the rent was fixed @ Rs. 400. 00 per month, excluding electricity and water charges. The rent is stated to have been enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month w. e. f. January 1995.

( 4 ) THE defence of the respondent is that he took one shop for commercial purposes in the year 1979 at a monthly rent of Rs. 40. 00 and one room, verandah, kitchen, latrine and bathroom on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 60. 00 for residential purposes. The surrender of the residential premises is not disputed and the rent for the shop is stated to have been fixed at Rs. 80. 00 excluding electricity and water charges. The respondent allege that the petitioner stopped taking rent after november 1997 and thereafter the amount was sent through money order, which was refused by the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE dispute between the parties related to the fact is that as to what was the agreed rent for the one room, which was being used as a shop. The Court of the additional Rent Controller considered the testimony of the witnesses. The petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW-1 while one Shri Ram Saran appeared as pw-2. Shri Ram Saran was earlier a tenant of the petitioner in respect of another property. The respondent appeared as RW-1 being the sole witness.

( 6 ) THE Additional Rent Controller found that on the date of the oral testimony of both the parties, there have been no written agreement, the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 500. 00 per month and thus passed an order under Section 14 (1) (a) of the said act, but this being the first default the protection of Section 14 (2) of the said Act was available to the respondent/tenant. An order was thus passed under Section 15 (1) of the said Act directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent w. e. f. May 1997 @ Rs. 500. 00 per month within one month from the date of the order.

( 7 ) THE respondent aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the Rent control Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 24. 7. 2003, which is now sought to be assailed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 8 ) IT may be noticed at this stage that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is restricted only to the question of law and in this behalf, the relevant provision of section 38 is reproduced herein:"38. Appeal to the Tribunal.- (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act [only on questions of law] to the Rent control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. "

( 9 ) THE limited controversy which arises from the order of the Tribunal is in respect of the document executed as P W-1 /x A, which is stated to be a survey report of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. This document was relied upon by the respondent to show the prevalent rent. The Additional Rent Controller considered this survey report for the year 1984, which records that the respondent is a tenant in respect of one shop measuring 8 x 8 at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- per month and in respect of one