Mir Abdul Hai &Anr v. Sanjeev Verma &Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

OCTOBER 11, 2017 "pp"..

(Corrected and released on 7th November, 2017).

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th October, 2017 + C.R.P. 222/2017 & CM No.36507/2017 (for stay). MIR ABDUL HAI &ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Mr. R.K. Uppal and Mr. Jagvir Bhadana, Advs. versus SANJEEV VERMA &ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.36508/2017 (for exemption). 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 222/2017 & CM No.36507/2017 (for stay). 3. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order (dated 24th July, 2017 in RCT No.21/17 of the Court of Rent Control Tribunal (Hqrs.), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of dismissal of the appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the two petitioners against the order (dated 11th January, 2017 in E. No.4/14/10 (New No.78594/16) of the Court of Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of eviction of the petitioners under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Before recording the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners / tenants, I may state that there are concurrent findings of fact of the Additional Rent Controller and of the Rent Control Tribunal, of the petitioner no.1 / tenant having incurred a ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Act. 5. The Rent Act, prior to the amendment w.e.f. 1st December, 1988, vide Section 39 thereof, provided for a remedy of Second Appeal to this Court against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in First Appeal. However, vide the said amendment, the said provision was deleted. I have in judgment dated 24th August, 2017 in CM(M) No.1256/2012 titled Nawal Kishore Vs. Mohd. Yakub relying on an earlier judgment of this Court in Jasbir Singh Vs. Manjit Kaur MANU/DE/4346/2013 held that though against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable but the scope thereof cannot be as wide as that of an appeal. I may in this regard also record that though the appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal vide Section 38 of the Rent Act prior to the aforesaid amendment was on law as well as on facts but with effect from the amendment, has been confined only to questions of law. The legislative intent thus is to give a finality to the findings of fact returned by the Rent Controller. The exercise of jurisdiction by this Court, under Section 115 of the CPC which has been invoked also, is confined to correct only errors of, exercise of jurisdiction not vested in law or failure to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acting in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 6. The orders of the Additional Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal, subject matter of present proceeding, cannot possibly be interfered with on the first two of the aforesaid three grounds. The Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal are vested with the power to pass an order of eviction of petitioner no.1 as a tenant if the ground of eviction provided under the Act is found to have been made out and if the premises are in the ambit of the Act. Once it is so, the only other ground on which revisionary jurisdiction can be exercised is of "exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity" and which ordinarily does not permit review of findings, returned on evidence recorded, of facts. 7. Both, the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal have found that the petitioner no.1 / tenant is no longer even present in the tenancy premises being shop no. 32/3176, Bedanpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and for 5 to 6 years prior to the filing of the petition for eviction, had been residing at Kolkata and the petitioner no.2 / sub-tenant alone is carrying on business from the tenancy premises. It has further been found that it was the case of the petitioners themselves that the petitioner no.2 / sub-tenant wa