Point of law: Interference would be justified only in the event the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal is entirely arbitrary and perverse or in excess of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Prateek Jalan, J.

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 7910/2022 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 144/2022 & CM APPL. 7911/2022 (stay)

1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 18.11.2021, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rent Control Tribunal, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereinafter, “the Tribunal”] in RCT No. 11/2019.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has affirmed an order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West, Rohini Court [hereinafter, “the Rent Controller”], dismissing the petitioner’s objection to execution of an eviction decree dated 16.08.2016, which was in favour of the respondent herein.

3. The respondent filed an eviction petition on 05.02.2015 against the petitioner’s husband, Mohd. Miraj Khan [hereinafter, “Khan”], in respect of a property described as “One room on G.F. in Premises No. Plot No. 30, Pal Colony, Rithala, Delhi”. Eviction was sought under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter, “the Act”]. Khan contested the proceedings by filing an application for leave to defend, which was dismissed vide the order of the Rent Controller dated 16.08.2016. Consequently, the eviction petition was allowed.

4. The aforesaid order dated 16.08.2016 was not challenged by Khan or by any other party. In the order dated 16.08.2016, Khan’s contention is noted to the effect that his wife [the petitioner herein] was the tenant of the premises in question, which is described as “Plot No. 17, Khasra No. 59/13, Pal Colony, Near Rithala Village”, and that she subsequently purchased the property. It was averred that the eviction petitioner [respondent herein] was not the owner of the suit property, but that Khan’s wife [petitioner herein], was the owner. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the eviction petitioner and Khan was therefore denied.

5. The matter was considered by the Rent Controller and it was recorded in the eviction order as follows :

“8. Present eviction petition is with respect to one room in plot no. 30, Part Khasra no. 59/13, Village Rithala, Delhi. The documents filed by the respondent are of plot no. 17, Khasra no. 59/13, Pal Colony, Near Rithala Village, Delhi. As per the documents filed by respondent, the description of the property is entirely different as compared to the suit property. The respondent in the entire application has not disputed the description of the tenanted premises as disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. Thus as such petitioner has not raised any triable issue with respect to the ownership/status of landlord of petitioner in the present matter. He is claiming that his wife is the owner of the suit property, however, as per the documents filed by him, his wife is the owner of some plot no. 17, while petitioner is seeking eviction of plot no. 30.”, Emphasis supplied.

6. The respondent herein thereafter sought execution of the aforesaid eviction order dated 16.08.2016. In the execution proceedings, Khan filed objections. The objections were dismissed by an order dated 05.10.2018, with the following observations:

“23. In view of above mentioned position of law now, we come back to the facts of present case. In this case first of all the case of the JD/objector is not that he has a independent title in the suit property or that he is covered U/s 18 of the DRC Act. In fact all what the JD is stating is that the description of suit property i.e. Juggi No.30 is different from his Jhuggi No.17. But on a perusal of the main order on leave to defend application dated 16.08.2016 read with site plan filed along with such petition, it is noted that such difference between Jhuggi No. 30 and 17 was dealt at that time also. The present JD/ respondent during such argument in main peti