SHARAFAT HUSSAIN Vs. GURPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an eviction petition against late Sh.Sharafat Hussain under Sections 14(1 )(a) & 14( 1 )(b) & 0) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of suit premises No.2027, Gali No. 156, Main Raod, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. The premises was stated to be let out in September October, 1984. Initially one shed in corner of the property is stated to have been leased out but the petitioner late Sh. Sharafat Hussain was alleged to have kept the adjacent shed and was subsequently accepted as a tenant in respect of two sheds kept by him. The tenancy was oral and thereafter a written settlement dated 26.7.1985 came into existence. The respondent however backed out from the same and sublet/assigned or parted with possession of the suit premises to several persons who are alleged to be running their business illegally. The arrears of rent were stated not have been paid despite demand and unauthorised damage to the property was alleged. The Additional Rent Controller in terms of the order dated 8.4.2000 dismissed the petition.

(2.) The respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal before the Additional Rent ControlTribunal which has been allowed partially vide order dated 9.12.2003. It has been held that the grounds under Section 14(l)(j) of the said Act have not been made out, but the petitioner was found in arrears of rent and this eviction order was passed under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act but the benefit of Section 14(2) was given to the petitioner being the first default and thus an order was passed under Section 15(1) of the said Act directing the petitioner to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 450 per month with effect from 1.2.1985 within one month of the date of the order. The case of subletting was found to have been made out under Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act. The petitioner has impugned the said order in the present proceedings.

(3.) It was put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to intervention in case of patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Thus the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner must be confined to that extent.