RAJE LAL PERMESHWARI DASS Vs. SHASHI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing the present petition under Section 25 -B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the "DRC Act"), the petitioner Raje Lal Permeshwari Dass assails the order dated 22nd January, 2013 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner (respondent in the eviction petition) for leave to defend was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts stated in the eviction petition as per the respondent (petitioner before the learned trial Court):

(3.) THE issue before this Court is, whether said findings call for any interference by this Court in revisionary jurisdiction in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case or not. It is settled law and it has been held from time to time by various courts that the revision under Section 25 -B(8) cannot be regarded as a first appeal and nor can it be as restricted as the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The High Court would have jurisdiction to interfere if it is of the opinion that there has been a gross illegality or material irregularity which has been committed or the Controller has acted in excess of his jurisdiction or has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. In other words, this Court has only to see whether the learned Rent Controller has committed any jurisdictional error and has passed the order on the basis of material available before it. A finding of fact arrived at by the Controller would not be interfered with by the High Court unless it can be shown that finding has been arrived at by misreading or omitting relevant evidence and this has resulted in gross injustice being caused. If none of the aforesaid circumstances exist the High Court would not be entitled to interfere with the order of the Controller in exercise of its jurisdiction under proviso to Section 25 -B(8) of the Act.