SUMITRA DEVI Vs. GITA NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition arises out of an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1 )(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the course of hearing it appears that a statement was made on behalf of Petitioners that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the Petitioners the recording of the statement was immediately ended. After hearing arguments on the same day, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that the petition was not maintainable under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and that, therefore, no opportunity was given for cross-examination. It is this Order that has been assailed by the Petitioners/landlord in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) At the very threshold learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent had taken an objection pertaining to the non maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was his contention that the landlord ought to have filed an Appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Sub-section (1) of which reads as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent had further stated that if the petition was withdrawn with the purpose of filing of an Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, he would not raise the limitation as one of the grounds in opposition to the Appeal. Despite this concession learned counsel for the Petitioner had insisted that the present petition is maintainable. Arguments were heard on 5/12/2000. After they continued for some time learned counsel for the Petitioner asked for an adjournment on the ground that he would cite judgments to the effect that relief under Article 227 of the Constitution was the most appropriate relief. On the next date of hearing i.e. 7/12/2000 the Respondent again reiterated his assurance that if the present proceedings were transferred to the Rent Control Tribunal, he would not contest the Appeal on the grounds of delay. This offer was again declined by learned counsel for the Petitioner whose obduracy in insisting that the present petition was well founded cannot be appreciated for the reason that similar relief could as easily have been obtained from the Rent Control Tribunal.