The High Court's limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution and the need for evidence to justify interference with the findings of the lower court or tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - CM aPPL. 10363/2022(exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 189/2022 & CM aPPL. 10362/2022(stay)

1. By way of this petition under article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails an order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, being the Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter, 'the Tribunal'] in RCT No. 12/2019 [Smt. Kamlesh Devi vs. Shri Sri Ram Jindal & anr.]. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the defendant no. 1 herein, against an order of the additional Rent Controller [hereinafter, 'aRC'] dated 08.02.2019, by which her application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter, 'CPC'] was dismissed.

2. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 herein [hereinafter, 'landlords'] filed eviction proceedings against the respondent no.1 herein [hereinafter, 'tenant'] on 21.01.2011 under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control act, 1958 [hereinafter, 'the act'] in respect of the suit property [WZ-1393, Nangal Raya, New Delhi] [hereinafter, 'the suit property']. The landlords claimed that the tenant was in possession of the suit property at a rent of ?1,400/- per month which had not been paid since 01.06.2005. They also claimed that she had acquired vacant possession of another property.

3. The eviction proceedings were proceeded ex-parte against the tenant, recording that she had failed to appear despite service of summons. after examination of the petitioner, the Trial Court allowed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(h) of the act, by a judgment dated 30.04.2012.

4. The tenant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on 29.08.2012. In the application, she claimed that she was not served with the notice of the petition. She also contended that the proceedings were transferred from one Court to another after issuance of notice, but the transferee court had not issued any notice of hearing. In support of the first ground, the tenant claimed that on 28.01.2011, when she was shown to have been served with the summons, she was not available at the suit property as she was attending the offices of BSES Ltd. [electricity distribution company] in connection with her electricity connection. She referred to orders passed in another suit between the same parties.

5. In the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, the aRC examined the tenant as well as the record clerk from the office of BSES Ltd., on behalf of the tenant. The father of the petitioner herein was examined on his behalf.

6. The aRC dismissed the application by an order dated 08.02.2019, holding that sufficient time had been granted to the tenant for filing of the reply and she was, therefore, rightly proceeded ex-parte. The learned aRC also found material contradictions in the testimony of the tenant as to the timing of her visit to the two offices of BSES Ltd. [in Janakpuri and andrews Ganj] and therefore came to a conclusion against her on facts.

7. In appeal under Section 38 of the act, the learned Tribunal has reversed the view taken by the aRC on both points.

8. The reasoning of the Tribunal on the question of transfer of proceedings is as follows:-

'15. a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that in case of an exparte decree or order, the applicant has to satisfy that the summons were not duly served or that one was prevented by any sufficient cause when the case was called for hearing. In the instant matter, the first blemish that occurred on the part of the Ld. aRC was that on filing of the Eviction petition on 21.01.2011, notice was ordered to be issued on filing of PF and RC for 08.03.2011. a perusal of the Trial Court Record would show that process fee was filed on the same day and the summon was shown to have been served upon the appellant/tenant on 28.01.2011, which summon is Ex. PW-1/2. First thing first, contrary