SHIV CHARAN DASS Vs. SARDAR MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) Dispute in the present case relates to the allegation of subletting by the petitioner-landlord against the respondent-tenant and the consequent relief of eviction sought under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein-after referred to as the said Act). The eviction petition was filed on more than one grounds, but the controversy survives only in respect of this ground. The Additional Rent Controller on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that though there was presence found of M/s Pritam Singh and Co. for a short period of time, the petitioner had failed to make out a case of subletting and prove the same. It may be noticed that the premises were let out by petitioner to late Sardar Mehar Singh and his legal heirs are now on record since he passed away. Respondent no.2 is M/s Pritam Singh and Company while respondents no.3 to 6 are the sons and daughters-in-law of late Sarder Mehar Singh to whom the premises is alleged to have been sublet.

(2.) The petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 29.10.1986 and the petitioner aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The appeal was also dismissed on 01.08.1997. The appellate court however found that even the presence of outsiders in the premises is not borne out from the record and thus reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller even on that account. The petitioner has impugned both the orders in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The present proceedings cannot be converted into a second appeal. At the time when the first appeal was filed, the unamended section of 38 of the said Act provided for an appeal both on the questions of law and of fact. Thus it cannot be doubted that the appellate court was within its rights to re-appraise the evidence. The jurisdiction of this court does not extend to once again re- appraise the evidence since only a patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction can be a reason for this court to interfere with the impugned orders.