MADAN LAL JAIN Vs. KAUSHALAYA DEVI AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the eviction order dated 15th July, 2004 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in R.C.A. No. 42/2004 thereby affirming the eviction order dated 25th May, 2004 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. E-18/2002 under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) on the ground of non-payment of rent, it being a case of second default.

(2.) Appellant herein was a tenant under the respondent in respect of two shops bearing private nos. 2 and 3 on the ground floor of the property bearing No. IX/6558, Nehru Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110 031. In the para no. 11 of the eviction petition, it was mentioned that monthly rental of shop no. 2 is Rs.96/- and that of shop no. 3 is Rs.103/-. It was alleged that tenant/appellant was in the arrears of rent with effect from 1st January, 2001 in respect of both the shops and he failed to tender the arrears of rent within two months of the receipt of notice of demand dated 16th July, 2001. In the earlier eviction petition bearing No. E-146/1987 which was also in respect of these two shops, the tenant/ appellant had availed the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act vide order dated 3rd April, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. Therefore, the tenant is not entitled to any benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act it being a case of second default. The tenant/appellant contested the eviction petition denying the arrears of rent and also service of demand notice. After considering the materials on record, learned Additional Rent Controller held that notice of demand dated 16th July, 2001 was duly served on the appellant who was in the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st January, 2001 and that he had not cleared the entire arrears of rent within two months from the service of notice of demand. Learned ARC found it to be a clear case of second default and therefore, passed the eviction order on 25th May, 2004. The appellant challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal in R.C.A No 42/2004 which has been dismissed by the tribunal vide order dated 15th July, 2004. Learned Tribunal has affirmed the finding of the learned ARC regarding arrears of rent being due from 1st January, 2001 and non-payment thereof by the appellant despite service of demand notice dated 16th July, 2001.

(3.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to examine the findings of fact as recorded by both the courts below regarding arrears of rent and service of demand notice. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that subordinate courts or the tribunals function within the limits of their authority. It does not extend to correction of mere error of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. An error of fact, even though apparent on the fact of the record, is not subject to correction by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Reference in this connection may be had to Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R.Tarta and Another (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases 858 and Achutananda Baidy vs Prafullya Kumar Gayen & Others (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 76.