SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the petitioner/tenant in respect of premises Shop No. 77, Mezzanine Floor, Desh bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was stated in the petition that the rate of rent was Rs. 250/- per month but after notice of the statutory increase as per amended law, the rate of rent on 10 per cent increase became rs. 275/- per month w. e. f. February 1994. The premises were alleged to have been let out for residential purposes but the petitioner was carrying on business in the premises. The petitioner was alleged to have been a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and earlier a petition was filed under the same provisions. In terms of the order dated 7. 5. 1991 benefit had been granted under Section 14 (2)of the said Act in those proceedings. However, in spite of availing of the benefit the petitioner was in arrears of rent w. e. f. 1. 3. 1993 and despite notice of demand dated 3. 1. 1994 calling upon the petitioner to tender the rent due @ rs. 250/- per month and to pay the further enhanced rent at 10 per cent statutorily due within two months from the date of receipt of the notice, the amount was not so paid.

( 2 ) IT is further stated that the petitioner sent a reply dated 7. 2. 1994 to the notice and remitted two cheques along with the same which were not encashed by the respondent. The rent was stated to be deposited with the Court of the additional Rent Controller but according to the respondent the same was not a valid deposit.

( 3 ) THE petition was contested by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that when the order dated 7. 5. 1991 was passed an appeal was preferred against the same, which was dismissed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal. However, the second appeal filed before this Court was stated to be still pending. It was further stated that the deposit made in Court was a valid deposit in view of the refusal of the respondent. The petitioner also submitted that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month but in order to avoid any controversy the rent as demanded has been tendered/deposited.

( 4 ) THE parties led their evidence and thereafter in terms of the judgement dated 19. 12. 1997 of the Additional Rent Controller the eviction petition was allowed. The petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal before the Additional rent Control Tribunal and in terms of the order dated 15. 10. 2005 the same was dismissed. The petitioner has thus impugned both the orders in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) IT cannot lost sight under the provisions of the said Act that the appeal lies to the Tribunal under Section 38 of the said Act only on a question of law. This was in terms of the legislative intent as a conscious decision was taken to amend the said provision in December 1988 prior whereto the appeal was both on a question of law and on a question of fact. Thus the scope of scrutiny itself by the Tribunal was said to be restrictive and the Additional Rent Controller was construed to be a final Court for appreciation of evidence. The present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can hardly be converted into a court of second appeal. It is only in case of a patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction would an intereference be called for. The legal position in this behalf has been made clear in the judgement of the Apex court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. JT 2003 (6) SC 465. In fact in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38, it has been observed that mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which jurisdiction is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to