PEREY LAL SYAL Vs. DHIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act questions the concurrent conclusions of the Rent Control Tribunal and of the First Additional Rent Controller by means of which it has been held that the landlord (respondent in this Court) requires the premises for his own personal use.

(2.) Before the Rent Control fribunal, a point was sought to be raised for the first time based on the observations of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Manujendra Dutt v Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhnryl. This new point was based on the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Tribunal, in its discretion did not allow this point to be raised.

(3.) Before me, Shri N. D. Bali, the learned counsel for the appellant, has very strongly and eloquently argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a substantial error of law In not permitting him to raise this point. I am not impressed by this contention. A new point can only be raised en appeal with the permission of the Appellate Court and this permission is to be granted or declined in the discretion of the Court of Appeal. Decision on a discretionary matter cannot ordinarily raise a substantial question of law. It does not even raise an unsabstantial question of law. Bat on going through the reasoning of the learned Tribunal, I find that the decision is perhaps also correct in law. However even assuming that I would have come to a different decision myself, that would hardly be a ground for interference on second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.