(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 24.07.2008 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) endorsing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.12.2006 whereby the respondent/tenant had been directed to deposit the rent @ Rs. 660/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2000 subject to the adjustment of rent already deposited by him; this was a modification of the earlier order dated 27.02.2003 passed under Section 15 (1) of the DRCA. Vide order dated 27.02.2003, an order had been passed under Section 15 (1) wherein the petitioner had been directed to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 600/- per month; in this order, the ARC had also noted that this is a case of first default; accordingly in the judgment dated 01.12.2006, the tenant was given benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRCA. This order of the ARC was the subject matter of an appeal before the RCT who had dismissed the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 24.07.2008.
(2.) THE facts are in a narrow compass. Petition was filed by the landlady Janki Devi seeking eviction of the tenant from the shop measuring 8'X10' in a part of house bearing No. 4, Libaspur Road, Opp. Chadha Nuursing Home, Samaipur, Delhi-110042. Rate of rent was Rs. 400/- per month. This eviction petition had been filed on 30.09.2002. THE contention of the landlord was that an earlier eviction petition which had been withdrawn on a compromise arrived at between the parties on 18.07.1996, an order under Section 15 (1) of the DRCA had been passed on 30.09.1995; contention was that even after the withdrawal of first eviction petition on 18.07.1996, the tenant continued to default in payments of rent and thus the order of the ARC dated 27.02.2003 holding that this is a case of first default is an illegality and clearly contrary to the record as this is a case of second default and should have been treated as such.
(3.) THIS Court is sitting in its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution; it is conscious of the fact that the right of second appeal has since been abrogated and this Court as such is not a substitute for an appellate forum; unless and until there is a manifest illegality or injustice which is caused to one party qua the other, interference is called for and on no other count.