The court confirmed that under Article 227, it cannot reappraise evidence but must ensure lower courts operate within their jurisdiction, affirming illegal sub-letting without owner's consent.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The orders under challenge in the present proceedings, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emanate from Eviction Petition 6087/2016 (Chandra Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Gupta & Anr.). The petitioner Arun Chopra was Respondent 2 in the said eviction petition, Respondent 1 Chandra Associates Pvt. Ltd. ("CAPL Ltd", hereinafter) was the petitioner and Respondent 2 Krishna Gupta was Respondent 1 therein.

2. For ease of reference, the parties shall be referred to by their respective names.

3. CAPL, in its eviction petition, set up a case of the suit property, located at A-15A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi having been previously owned by one Dr. R.K. Gupta. CAPL pleaded that R.K. Gupta had sold the suit property to CAPL by a registered sale deed, and that Krishna Gupta was, at that time, a tenant in the property. It was further pleaded that, consequent to purchasing the property, CAPL asked Krishna Gupta to hand over possession of the property, but that she failed to do so. It was alleged that, rather, Krishna Gupta had sublet the suit premises to the petitioner Arun Chopra without the consent of the owner Dr. R.K. Gupta on 21st May, 1981.

4. Krishna Gupta did not file any written statement in response to the eviction petition and was, accordingly, proceeded ex parte.

5. The petitioner Arun Chopra, as Respondent 2 in the eviction petition, filed a written statement, in which he contended that he was inducted in the suit property on 21st May, 1981 by Krishna Gupta and her husband Tarsem Gupta, who were authorised to do so under a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 26th August, 1976, executed by Dr. R.K. Gupta. He submitted that no rent receipt was executed at the time as Dr. R.K. Gupta was out of India.

6. The petitioner contended that, ultimately, on 5th August, 1983, a lease agreement was executed with the petitioner Arun Chopra. Admittedly, the lessor, in this lease agreement, was Krishna Gupta, though Tarsem Gupta is stated to be a witness to the said agreement. Equally admittedly, the GPA dated 26th August, 1976, did not confer any authority on Krishna Gupta to lease out the suit premises. The said authority was conferred, by the GPA, if at all, only on Tarsem Gupta.

7. The petitioner filed a petition for fixing of standard rent under Sections 6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner sought to contend, in the said petition, that Krishna Gupta had accepted execution of the lease deed dated 5th August, 1983. Under the said lease deed, therefore, the petitioner claimed to have directly attorned to Dr. R.K. Gupta as his direct tenant, albeit through Krishna Gupta and Tarsem Gupta.

8. It was further submitted by the petitioner, before the learned ARC, that CAPL had not produced any title documents and was, in fact, an unauthorised occupant and a trespasser in the suit property. The allegation of CAPL, to the effect that Krishna Gupta was a tenant in the suit property was also denied. It was reiterated that Krishna Gupta and Tarsem Gupta were GPA holders and representatives of Dr. R.K. Gupta. In his written statement, the petitioner Arun Chopra also denied the assertion, by CAPL, to have purchased the suit property from Dr. R.K. Gupta.

9. CAPL, in its rejoinder in the eviction petition, submitted that the GPA dated 26th August, 1976 did not confer any right on Krishna Gupta to lease the suit property to anyone. It was also submitted that there was no agreement between Dr. R.