Murti Devi v. Bohat Ram & Anr

INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 07, 2012 A

$R-41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No. 443/2009 & CM No. 6920/2009 MURTI DEVI Petitioner Through Mr. Sunil Laiwani, Adv. versus BOHAT RAM AND ANOTHER Respondents Through Mr. J.K. Jam, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR iTh 1 U' r' D % 07.02.2012 I Judgment impugned before this Court is the judgment dated 18.04.2009 which was passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) endorsing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 26.05.2008 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord namely Bohat Ram seeking eviction of his tenant Murti Dcvi from the demised premises i.e. one room measuring 16'XlO' feet on the ground floor of house property No. WZ-5, Village Titar Pur, New Delhi under Section 14 (l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed in favour of the landlord. Page 1 of6 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 2 Record shows that the present petitioner was a tenant in the aforestated premises which had initially been let out to her father-in-law namely Sumer Chand. Contention of the landlord was that after the death of the husband of Murti Devi, she has sublet/assigned/parted with possession of the suit premises in favour of Vinod Kumar, 3 Oral and documentary evidence had been led by the respective parties. The ARC who was the first fact finding Court has returned a categorical finding that the eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA stood proved and the ground of sub-letting as averred in the eviction petition had been established by the landlord. This judgment of the ARC was up-held by the RCT who had also delved into the facts although an appeal under Section 38 of the DRCA is to be confined on a substantial question of law only. 4 This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the interference in the two fact findings are called for by the High Court only if there is manifest injustice or a flagrant perversity which has been committed by the courts below in the absence of which interference under Article 227 is not permitted. p 6 It is, in this background, the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall be viewed. 7 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of provision of Section 8 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') read with Rule 5 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1959, a legal question has arisen which is to the '4 effect that the tenant who was admittedly in occupation of this suit premises even prior to the independence continues to be a tenant and he cannot be evicted in view of the aforenoted statutory provision; further contention being that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been disputed by the petitioner right from the inception; this contention being substantiated by drawing attention of the Court to the testimony of AW-3 who has in his cross-examination has stated that he knew Sumer Chand since the last 50 years; Surner Chand was living in the villagesince the independence of India; this testimony establishing a fact that Sumer Chand was living as a tenant in the disputed premises at the time of the promulgation of the DLRA in 1954 and this property is thus covered by the provisions of the DLRA. 8 Needless to state that Sumer Chand was the original tenant i.e. fO father-in-law of Murti Devi; contention being raised by the petitioner herein is that since Sumer Chand was a tenant prior to independence, it is clear that at the time of promulgation of the said Act which was in the year 1954, Sumer Chand was a resident of the village and as such the statutory provision as aforenoted i.e. Section 8 read with Rule 5 of the said Act would get attracted and thus there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. 9 Argu