The High Court has limited jurisdiction under Article 227, focusing on supervisory review rather than factual assessments, reinforcing the necessity of proving independent rights to property for eviction protections.

JUDGMENT

1. The petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15th March, 2021 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, District-West, Principal District & Sessions Judge (RCT), whereby the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of her objections to the execution of the order of eviction against the respondent No.2, were dismissed.

2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the respondent No.1 had filed a suit for eviction against the respondent No.2, numbered as 53/2008, under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC) claiming to be the landlord of property measuring 55 sq. yards being part of property No.10/13, Gali No.9, Anand Parbat, Delhi. The learned ARC passed the eviction order dated 24th March, 2012 and vide subsequent order dated 7th April, 2012, the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the DRC Act was denied as the respondent No.2 had not complied with the order dated 14th July, 2005 passed under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act. The respondent No.2 preferred an appeal being RCT No.28/2012 which was also dismissed by the learned ARCT (West) vide order dated 9th October, 2012.

3. Thereafter, an Execution Petition No.61934/2016 was filed. It was during the pendency of the Execution Petition that the present petitioner preferred objections initially under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) dated 15th February, 2013 followed by additional objections under Section 47 of the CPC read with Section 25 of the DRC Act claiming that she was the lawful, rightful and absolute owner in possession of the suit property and was having an independent right to the same having purchased it from Shri Mohan Lal Goyal s/o Shri Jyoti Ram vide Agreement to Sell dated 23rd May, 2003, Receipt of Payment, Possession Letter, registered General Power of Attorney as well as Will, all dated 23rd May, 2003. She has further claimed that she has been in possession of the suit property since then and had also obtained a factory licence from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). It was further alleged that the respondent No.1 has never been the owner/landlord of the premises in question and he himself was a tenant under Shri Mohan Lal Goyal. In fact, the premises had been sub-let by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, who had subsequently surrendered the possession in favour of Shri Mohan Lal Goyal, from whom the petitioner had received the possession.

4. The learned ARC vide order dated 30th September, 2019 concluded that the petitioner had miserably failed to prove her independent right to the suit property and dismissed the objections. In appeal being RCT No.78/2019, the learned RCT vide order dated 15th March, 2021, upheld the said findings, again looking into the evidence referred to by the learned ARC and found that the conclusions of the ARC were justified.

5. Mr. Varun Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts had erred in coming to these conclusions as it was overlooked that there was some previous litigation between Shri Mohan Lal Goyal and the respondent No.1 through the objector, in which certain admissions had been made to the effect that the respondent No.1 was in fact a tenant of the said Shri Mohan Lal Goyal. It is Shri Mohan Lal Goyal from whom the petitioner was claiming ownership to the suit property and that inadvertent typographical errors could not have the effect of denying to the petitioner the right to protect her possession in the suit property. It was further submitted that the documents ought to have been co