High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, assails a judgment rendered by the Principal District & Sessions Judge. By the said judgment, the learned District & Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20.08.2019 of the learned Additional Rent Controller.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was a tenant of the premises in question, in respect of which the respondent-landlord filed eviction proceedings in August 2018. Although the landlord claimed that the tenancy had been created in the year 2011, the petitioner asserted a tenancy in existence since the year 2007. According to the petitioner, the rent, which was originally ₹750/- per month, and enhanced to ₹2,300/- per month was paid until March 2018. By the judgment dated 20.08.2019, the ARC allowed the respondent’s application for eviction and directed the petitioner to pay the unpaid rent @ ₹2,300/- per month from 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 and from 01.01.2019 onwards. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in which the impugned judgment has been rendered. After the judgment of the ARC, the premises was vacated, and possession handed over to the respondent landlord.
HC’s Observations:
The question before the Court was whether the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of rent for the period from 01.01.2016 or only after 31.03.2018 as claimed by her.
Court observed that no rent receipts were issued, as required under Section 26 of the Act, the learned Appellate Court has held that the period of default was required to be determined from the surrounding circumstances. HC observed that the learned Appellate Court has disbelieved the case of the petitioner that she continued to make payments of rent without obtaining any receipt despite the fact that the relations between the parties had become acrimonious at least since April 2016.
Court stated that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and discretionary. It does not extend to reappreciation of evidence as an appellate forum, and the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, will not intervene to correct every error of law or fact committed by the courts below. As long as there is some evidence to support the finding rendered by the Trial Courts, the question of exercising supervisory jurisdiction would not arise.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the evidence has been adequately discussed in the impugned judgment and the learned Appellate Court has come to a finding against the petitioner, affirming the view taken by the Trial Court. The petitioner has not been able to cast a doubt on these findings, particularly to the high standard required for exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.”
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Smt.Usha @ Durgawati Devi v. Sh Dilip Kumar Singh
Case Details: CM(M) 57/2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments