SURI PROPERTIES Vs. OM PRAKASH BROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Ld. ARCT, New Delhi, whereby the appeal against the order dated 13.09.2011 was dismissed and the application for restitution of the suit premises filed by the respondent/tenant under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "the Code"), was allowed.

(2.) The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are as follows. The respondent is a tenant in respect of premises bearing Qrt No. 7, Block C, Regal Building Annexe, Behind Regal Cinema, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit premises"). The suit property was originally owned by Sardar Bhagwant Singh and others. They had let the property to the respondents vide a registered lease deed dated 18.01.1985 under which the tenants were allowed to sub-let the suit premises. The same was then purchased by the petitioner around the year 1985 or 1986. The respondent had sub-let the premises to M/s Space Tours and Travels in 1987. On coming to know about this subletting, the petitioner filed an eviction petitioner u/s 14(1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act") on 25.10.1994, which was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondent, on the apprehension that the sub-tenant M/s Space Tours and Travels would part with possession of the suit premises, filed a civil suit against them in 1995 which was decreed by this Court. Subsequently on 19.10.2007, the petitioner filed another petition u/S 14(1) (d) of the Act against the respondent. An ex-parte eviction order was passed and the possession of the suit premises was handed over to the petitioner. After obtaining possession, the petitioner let out the suit premises to Sh. Hardev Singh on 12.02.2009 for a period of three years which was to expire on 31.01.2012. The respondent on coming to know of the ex parte decree filed an application u/O 9 Rule 13 of the Code. It was allowed vide order dated 09.04.2012 and since the same was not challenged by the petitioner, it became final. After this, the respondent moved an application u/S 144 of the Code which was allowed by an order dated 13.09.2011. The petitioner challenged this order u/S 38 of the Act and the same was dismissed by the Ld. ARCT. This order is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Before proceeding further, it is important to note that the jurisdiction of this court u/A 227 of the Constitution is supervisory in nature. The power of the court is not like that of an appeal and the court has to restrict itself and see as to whether the subordinate courts have acted within the bounds of their jurisdiction and also whether any grave injustice would be caused to any one of the parties unless this court interferes. Keeping the above principle of law in mind, I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the documents on record.