DHANANJAY GUPTA Vs. SUDESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22 nd May, 2013 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner being RCA No.51/2012 was dismissed by the District & Sessions Judge (East) -cum -Addl. Rent Control Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, as well as the judgment dated 10th July, 2012 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was dismissed after recording the evidence of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed the eviction petition in March, 2006 against the respondents under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act seeking their eviction from Shop No.4 in the property No.IX/1254, Tikona Park, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -110031 (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property"). Both the respondents filed a joint written statement in July, 2006 whereby they refuted the averments of the petitioner by raising the defence that respondent No.2 is the nephew of respondent No.1. He is not a sub -tenant, as respondent No.1 has himself been looking after, supervising, controlling and managing all the business activities. He is paying a sum of Rs.3,000/ - per month to respondent No.2. The business is being run by respondent No.1 who is the sole proprietor. Thus, the question of subletting/assigning or parting with the possession to respondent No.2 does not arise.

(3.) IT is well settled principle of law that the High Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot proceed to act as a Court of appeal by interfering in mere errors of finding fact which requires re -appreciation and re -weighing of evidence unless it results in manifest miscarriage of justice as a Court of appeal. The said power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly and circumspectly to ensure that decision making done by lower Court and tribunal below is within their bounds and limits.