SARWATI DEVI Vs. BIRBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition, u/S 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act") read with Sections 115 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "the Code"), assails the order dated 04.09.2010 passed by the Ld. ARC, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that she is the landlady/owner of premises bearing no. C-345-B, Gali No. 15, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53. The respondent is a tenant in respect of four rooms, one latrine and one bathroom (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises") at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500.00, excluding electricity and water charges. She stated that the tenanted premises were let out to the respondent tenant in 1997. After the death of her husband, his entire properties were divided among his sons through oral partition and the tenanted premises were left for the use of the petitioner. She also submitted that she has been paying house tax and water charges to the Departments. Claiming to be the owner of the tenanted premises, she has filed eviction petition u/S 14D of the Act, on the ground of her requirement of the tenanted premises for residential purpose. It is stated that she was currently staying with her son Sh. Gyanendra Sharma at C-345, Gali No. 16, Bhajanpura, Delhi and her son was compelling her to vacate his house. She further submitted that she has no other premises except the one occupied by the respondent.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to examine the facts and the documents on record, it is pertinent to maintain that the jurisdiction of this Court, u/S 25B (8) of the Act read with Sections 115 and 151 of the Code is of a limited nature. It is confined to seeing whether the lower court's order was passed within proper jurisdiction and also whether any grave injustice or miscarriage of justice would occur if the impugned order is allowed to stand. Keeping the above legal principle in mind, I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records.