V.B.Gupta, J. -- This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against impugned judgment dated 6th April, 2010, passed by Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short as ‘Tribunal’) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi allowing the eviction petition of the landlord-respondent herein, under Section 14 (1) (h) of Delhi Control Act 1958 (for short as ‘Act’). Petitioner has also prayed to confirm the judgment dated 30th March, 2009 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as ‘Controller’) Delhi, vide which eviction petition of the respondent, under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Act was dismissed.

2. Brief facts are that, respondent filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1) (a), (j) and (h) of the Act against petitioner, inter alia on the allegations that he is landlord/owner of property bearing no. 1/6595, East Rohtas Nagar, Ludhiana Building, Shahdara, Delhi. Petitioner is a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, open verandah and open courtyard at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. Premises were let out for residential purpose but petitioner is not residing in the premises and has shifted to property No. C-91, IIIrd Floor, West Gorakh Park Extn., Shahdara Delhi.

3. Petitioner in her written statement admits that she is a tenant in the premises in question. She denies that she is not residing in the suit premises. In fact, she is residing in suit premises along with her family, consisting of two married sons and grand children.

4. The Controller dismissed the Eviction Petition of the respondent on all the three grounds.

5. Respondent, thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide impugned order the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Controller with regard to Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act, but granted benefit of Section 14 (1) (2) of the Act, to the petitioner. Appeal qua Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act, was dismissed.

6. Regarding Section 14 (1) (h) of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the findings of Controller and passed an eviction order.

7. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner had at no point ever acquired or being allotted, premises bearing No. C-91, IIIrd Floor, West Gorakh Park Extn., Shahdara Delhi. As per evidence this premise is owned and possessed by Ms. Aarti Nayyar and Mr. Amit Kapur. No evidence has been produced by the landlord to the effect that petitioner is having any vested right in the said property.

8. It is further contended that daughter of petitioner is living in separate premises whereas, petitioner is residing with her son in the said premises and there was no cross-examination to the effect that petitioner is not living in the suit premises. The onus was upon the landlord to prove that petitioner has acquired a residential premise. However, respondent failed to prove its case during trial.

9. Other contention is that, mere fact that service of the summons was affected upon petitioner at premises No. C-91, IIIrd Floor, West, Gorakh Park Ext. Shahadra, Delhi will not mean that petitioner has acquired alternative accommodation, as admittedly service of summons of appeal was effected upon petitioner in the tenanted premises.

10. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited.

11. In Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215, the court observed;

"This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in – ‘Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee’, AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors."

12. In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order is maintainable or not.

13. In para 18 (a) (iii) of eviction petitio