ASHOK KUMAR AHUJA Vs. GULAB RAI KHANCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 16.11.2011 passed the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) endorsing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 27.03.2010 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Gulab Rai Khanchandani seeking eviction of his tenant Ashok Kumar Ahuja and another on the ground under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed in his favour; admittedly benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRCA had already been granted to the tenant and this being a case of second default, the ARC had decreed the eviction petition in favour of the landlord; the impugned judgment had also endorsed this finding.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it may be noted that the powers of superintendence to be exercised by the High Court are supervisory powers and interference in the concurrent fact finding of the two Courts below is warranted only if there is a flagrant perversity or a manifest injustice which has accrued to the other party in the absence of which interference is not called for.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the tenant was initially a tenant under Sakhi Bai, the mother of the petitioner. Vide order dated 13.07.2001 passed in eviction petition No. 158/1996 the tenant had been given the benefits of Section 14 (2) of the DRCA. On 06.07.2005, the rent of the premises which was initially Rs. 1,500/- per month had been increased to Rs. 1,650/- per month to be effective from October, 2005. Contention of the landlord is that the tenant had illegally deposited the house tax of the tenanted premises in their own name without knowledge or permission of the landlord but he had not remitted the rent for the period w.e.f. October, 2005. Legal notice dated 08.11.2006 was served upon the tenant asking him to pay up the arrears of rent from 01.10.2005. Inspite thereof, the rent was not tendered. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.