Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Mir Abdul Hai & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Sanjeev Verma & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. 222 of 2017 & CM No.36507 of 2017 (for stay)
Decided On : 11-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Singh, Mr. R.K. Uppal and Mr. Jagvir Bhadana, Advs.
The Rent Act amendment limited the scope of appeal to questions of law, providing finality to the findings of fact by the Rent Controller, and emphasized the shift in interpretation of Rent Laws without bias towards either the landlord or the tenant.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Eviction - Section 14(1)(b) - CPC - Section 115 - Article 227 - Second Appeal - Jurisdiction - Rent Act Amendment - Sub-letting - Assignment - Parting with Possession - Rent Act Provisions - Jurisdiction of Rent Controller - Finding of Facts - Interpretation of Rent Laws
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a petition for eviction of tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenants contested the eviction before the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, but were unsuccessful. The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, the legislative intent behind the Rent Act amendment, and the findings of fact regarding sub-letting and possession of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenants failed to prove their contentions regarding sub-letting and jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. It emphasized the legislative intent to provide finality to the findings of fact returned by the Rent Controller and upheld the orders of eviction based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, the interpretation of Rent Act provisions, and the tenants' contentions regarding sub-letting and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rent Act amendment limited the scope of appeal to questions of law, providing finality to the findings of fact by the Rent Controller. It emphasized the difficulty for landlords to prove sub-letting and the shift in interpretation of Rent Laws without bias towards either the landlord or the tenant.
Final Decision: The petition for eviction was dismissed, and costs of Rs.20,000/- were awarded to the respondents/landlords.
CM No.36508/2017 (for exemption).
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
C.R.P. 222/2017 & CM No.36507/2017 (for stay).
3. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order (dated 24th July, 2017 in RCT No.21/17 of the Court of Rent Control Tribunal (Hqrs.), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of dismissal of the appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the two petitioners against the order (dated 11th January, 2017 in E. No.4/14/10 (New No.78594/16) of the Court of Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of eviction of the petitioners under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.
4. Before recording the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners/tenants, I may state that there are concurrent findings of fact of the Additional Rent Controller and of the Rent Control Tribunal, of the petitioner no.1/tenant having incurred a ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Act.
5. The Rent Act, prior to the amendment w.e.f. 1st December, 1988, vide Section 39 thereof, provided for a remedy of Second Appeal to this Court against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in First Appeal. However, vide the said amendment, the said provision was deleted. I have in judgment dated 24th August, 2017 in CM(M) No.1256/2012 titled Nawal Kishore Vs. Mohd. Yakub relying on an earlier judgment of this Court in Jasbir Singh Vs. Manjit Kaur MANU/DE/4346/2013 held that though against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable but the scope thereof cannot be as wide as that of an appeal. I may in this regard also record that though the appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal vide Section 38 of the Rent Act prior to the aforesaid amendment was on law as well as on facts but with effect from the amendment, has been confined only to questions of law. The legislative intent thus is to give a finality to the findings of fact returned by the Rent Controller. The exercise of jurisdiction by this Court, under Section 115 of the CPC which has been invoked also, is confined to correct only errors of, exercise of jurisdiction not vested in law or failure to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acting in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
6. The orders of the Additional Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal, subject matter of present proceeding, cannot possibly be interfered with on the first two of the aforesaid three grounds. The Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal are vested with the power to pass an order of eviction of petitioner no.1 as a tenant if the ground of eviction provided under the Act is found to have been made out and if the premises are in the ambit of the Act. Once it is so, the only other ground on which revisionary jurisdiction can be exercised is of “exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity” and which ordinarily does not permit review of findings, returned on evidence recorded, of facts.
7. Both, the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal have found that the petitioner no.1/tenant is no longer even present in the tenancy premises being shop no. 32/3176, Bedanpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and for 5 to 6 years prior to the filing of the petition for eviction, had been residing at Kolkata and the petitioner no.2/sub-tenant alone is carrying on business from the tenancy premises. It has further been found that it was the case of the petitioners themselves that the petitioner no.2/sub-tenant was earlier an employee of the petitioner no.1/tenant and then working in the premises on commission basis. On these findings of fact, which are not in dispute, the order of eviction impugned in this petition has been passed.
8. It is not the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that findings of fact returned are not based on the evidence led
