KISHAN SWROOP Vs. MAWASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Rent Controller (for short 'ARC') has by the impugned order dated 4/4/1998 dismissed the Petitioners' application under Section 14(i)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of the Respondents-Tenants. In order to succeed in this Revision the Petitioners must establish that the impugned Order is the consequence of the ARC having exercised jurisdiction incorrectly. The High Court is not expected to act as an appellate forum. It must be retained in perspective that the legislature intended the ARC to be the master of the facts, since the provisions permitting an appeal have been removed from the Act. With this preamble let us consider the facts of the case.

(2.) The property in which the demised premises are situated had been purchased by the Petitioners on 13/11/1985 and the eviction Petition has been filed on 26/11/1990. There is no real dispute in respect of their ownership and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as has been found by the ARC. On the letting purpose the ARC has held that the Petitioners have failed to prove that it was confined to residential purposes only. No lease deed or rent note is in existence and the original tenancy itself goes back one generation. The Petitioners were the erstwhile Tenants of a portion of the building and were Using it for commercial purposes themselves. The ARC is of the view that the demised premises are located in a commercial area (Ajmeri Gate) and that the ground floors are especially commercial in character. The ARC has also noted that the premises have a commercial electricity connection, and that the Tenant had filed various documents which Indicated that the user of the promises was commercial also for periods prior to the filing of this petition. The ARC has also noted that the Petitioners have themselves been using the ground floor portion in their possession for commercial purposes, and have admitted that the Tenant used to sell chappals on the pavement. Thus there is indubitably an abundance of evidence indicating the possibility that the premises were let for composite purposes and have been used as such. The conclusions of the ARC that the purpose of letting was residential-cum-commercial and not residential alone is based on evidence and cannot be seen as perverse. This Court should not substitute a possible conclusion contrary to that of the ARC on its own appreciation of the evidence and the precedents on the issue. Therefore there is no infirmity with the impugned order. In any event it is also found and held that the eviction petition was rightly rejected.

(3.) The ARC has drawn an adverse inference against the Petitioners because of their failure to plead details of their property in Ashram, Delhi, even though he had specifically mentioned that he was "aware of the legal position that a landlord is not supposed to mention the properties in the petition which are not available with him for residence." The findings of the ARC cannot even be assailed on this point since the existence of bona fides/mala fides is essentially based on facts/evidence and is within the exclusive province of the Controller. A finding in this regard can be interfered with only if it is perverse, or in other words, could not have been returned at all. The ARC has repeatedly observed that the evidence of the Petitioners is not inspiring, whereas the version of the Tenant rings true. Since the family of the tenant consists of himself, wife and one son, in the opinion of the ARC the demised premises comprising two rooms could easily be used for composite purpose. The order which is assailed in this Revision is well reasoned. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as M.L. Prabhakar V. Rajiv Singal, 2001 Rajdhani Law Reporter 123, M.C.Goenka and Another V. Brig (R) S.P.Kochar, 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter 488, Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar V. Ram Narain Arora & Another, 1995 1 AD (Delhi) 1082, Raghubir Singh V. Virender Kumar, 1994 Rajdhani Law Reporter 183, and Ram Narain Arora vs. Asha Ram and Others, AIR 1998 SC 3012. In order to avoid needless prolixity I do not intend to deal with each of these precedents as I am of the view that they do not lead to the conclusion that the impugned decision of the ARC could not have been arrived at all. Where more than one view and conclusion is possible, the High Court should not substitute the view preferred by it upon the view of the Controller. There is no error in the impugned order. The Revision Petition is dismissed.