NARENDRA SINGH JAIN Vs. R P SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent/Landlord has filed the present Eviction Petition, inter alia, under Section 14(1 )(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller in terms of his Order dated 31.7.1995. Thereafter, the Landlord filed an Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. By his Order dated 1.5.2000, while allowing the Appeal, the Tribunal observed as follows:

(2.) In the Grounds of Appeal, it has been asserted that several "substantial questions of law of great general public importance which need authoritative pronouncement" have arisen. But from a perusal of the five grounds raised they do not partake of this nature but calls for this Court taking a view contrary to that of the first Appellate Court. Be that as it may, since arguments were heard, I shall overlook this technicality. It must, however, borne in mind that the intention of the Legislation is that finality must attach to the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal on facts, as well as the application of law in respect of those facts.

(3.) Mr. G.N. Aggarwal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Tenant has strongly contended that the Tribunal had (a) no jurisdiction to direct the Tenant to stop the misuser of the premises within one month of the date of the Order and (b) direct the Tenant to pay misuser charges as imposed by the DDA. It was his contention that this power has been specifically granted only to the Controller. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported as Faqir Chand\/s. Ram Rattan BhanotMR 1973 SC 921, M/s. Curewell (India) Ltd. Vs. Sahib Sing'h(dead by L.Rs.) and Others. 1992 (2) RCR 318 and a decision of a Single Judge of this Court entitled as Ashok Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Kimtilal, Subhash Grower Vs. Usha Rani, 1993 RLR 367.