Point of Law: No doubt the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised as if the court is an Appellate Court. However, when the learned Trial Court overlooks significant facts and considers irrelevant facts, this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction would interfere with a decision of a Trial Court, especially in the event the orders appear to be perverse and unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the setting aside of the order dated 19th April, 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), South-East District Saket, New Delhi in CS No.792/2017 filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner herein.

2. Before coming to the impugned order, a few facts may be set out.

3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent No.2 and daughter-in-law of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed a suit being CS No.792/2017 against the petitioner for eviction from Property No.D-077, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) wherein an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) filed by the respondent No.1 resulted in the order dated 8th April, 2019 whereby the suit was decreed. Against this decree, a Regular First Appeal (RFA) was filed by the petitioner being RFA No.381/2019. This RFA was disposed of along with several other matters by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide judgment dated 18th December, 2019 whereby the decree dated 8th April, 2019 was also set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication. The respondent No.2 was also impleaded in the suit pursuant to the directions issued by this court on 18th December, 2019.

4. Being aggrieved by these directions issued by this court, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.2483/2020 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15th October, 2020.

5. The impugned order dated 19th April, 2021 has been passed by the learned Trial Court on an application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short). Prior thereto, vide its order dated 29th January, 2021, the learned Trial Court had held that the respondent No.1 was entitled to file such an application seeking interim relief directing the petitioner to shift to an alternate accommodation on payment of rental amount by the respondents. This order was challenged before this court through CM(M) No.179/2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 2nd March, 2021 directing the Trial Court to adjudicate the application remaining uninfluenced by any observation made by it in its order dated 29th January, 2021.

6. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 19th April, 2021 allowed the application of the respondents and issued the following directions:

“38. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the present application under Section 19(1)(f) of the D.V. Act filed on behalf of plaintiff is allowed with following directions:

(i) The Plaintiff and defendant no.2 shall jointly or severally pay a total sum of Rs.1,60,000 as an advance amount of the two months rental value to the defendant no.1 in her bank account before 10th May, 2021 in order to enable her to take on rent a suitable accommodation for herself.

(ii) There the plaintiff and defendant no.2 jointly or severally pay next monthly payment of Rs.80,000 within 30 days i.e. by 10th June, 2021 and after that on the succeeding month by tenth day of every month directly into her bank account.

(iii) Upon the said payment being commenced, the daughter-in-law (Defendant no.1) shall vacate the suit property within 40 days from the date of first payment or counting from 01.05.2021 whichever is later e.g. if the payment of Rs.1,60,000 is received on 05.05.2021, she will vacate by 15.06.2021 after receiving the next instalment of Rs.80,000 by 10.06.2021.

(iv) The advance amount of Rs.1,60,000 shall not be adjusted in next monthly instalment till further orders.

(v) This order is subject to final decision of the present suit.”

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition has been filed by the defendant No.1 in the suit.

8. Extensive arguments have been advanced by Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned senior counse