The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction is limited to procedural compliance and cannot reassess evidence as an appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.

1. The Petitioner/tenant and the son of the Respondent/landlady are physically present in the Court today.

2. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/tenant impugning a judgment dated 01.10.2014 passed by Ld. SCJ-cum-RC, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’]. By the Impugned Order, the Eviction Petition filed by the Respondent/landlady was allowed. The premises in issue is one shop situated at ground floor of Property No. 667, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi-110051 [hereinafter referred to as ‘subject premises’].

3. This Court had examined this matter briefly on three dates i.e. 24.10.2024, 28.11.2024 and 05.12.2024. The only ground that has been raised by the Petitioner/tenant was that another shop which is adjacent to the subject premises is available with the Respondent/landlady, and thus, the Impugned Judgment suffers from an infirmity.

4. A perusal of order dated 05.12.2024 reflects that this aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court including on 24.10.2024 and on 05.12.2024. The record reflected that the other shop that was being referred to by the Petitioner/tenant was in the occupation of another son of the Respondent/landlady, and thus, was not available for the use of the Respondent/landlady. The relevant extract of order dated 05.12.2024 is reproduced below:

“2. This Court in its order dated 24.10.2024 has recorded the following:

“2. The present petition has been filed impugning the Eviction order dated 01.10.2014 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The premises in issue is one shop situated at Ground Floor bearing No.667, Jheel Kuranja, Delhi-31.

3. The Eviction petition was filed on 18.08.2008. After a full trial in the matter, the petition was allowed.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is with respect to the availability of another shop which was let out by the Respondent for the period from 19.08.2009 to February, 2010 (6 months). He submits that the learned Trial Court has not taken into account this period for which the additional shop was let out. He seeks to rely on Paragraph 25 of the Impugned Order dated 01.10.2014, which reads as follows:

“25. Lastly the counsel for respondent argued that during the period from 19.08.09 to Feb, 2010, the petitioner let out one of the shops to one Sh. Chanchal Kumar and it is argued that there is no requirement of shop in question and that is why the shop was let out to Sh. Chanchal Kumar. From the aforesaid arguments it is itself clear that the date of letting of said shop pertain prior to the date of filing of the present case and as such it does not make any big difference when it is claimed the said shop is in occupation of the other son of the petitioner as on the date of filing of the present case.”

5. Paragraph 25 of the Impugned Order however refers to the fact that the shop in issue is in occupation of the other son of the Respondent and thus it is not available to the Respondent.

[Emphasis supplied]

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant today makes the same submissions. He submits that there is another shop available which was let out for a short period with the Respondent/landlady.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/landlady submits that, as was submitted before and recorded in the order dated 24.10.2024, this issue has adequately been dealt with by the learned Trial Court in the Impugned Judgment. Learned Senior Counsel submits that paragraph 25 of the Impugned Judgment refers to the fact that the shop in issue is in occupation with the other son of the Respondent/landlady and thus is not available to the Respondent/landlady.

7. No new contention has been raised before this Court by the Petitioner/tenant.

8. On the aspect of landlord-tenant relationship and ownership of the subject premise