22 Feb 2022 5:55 AM GMT
The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised by the High Court when the challenge is to the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal. Justice Prateek Jalan added that where orders have been passed on consideration of the materials placed before the Rent Controller and the Tribunal, the...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised by the High Court when the challenge is to the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal.
Justice Prateek Jalan added that where orders have been passed on consideration of the materials placed before the Rent Controller and the Tribunal, the High Court would not be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 assailing an order dated 18.11.2021, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rent Control Tribunal of the Rohini Courts.
In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal had affirmed an order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller dismissing the petitioner's objection to execution of an eviction decree which was in favour of the respondent.
The respondent had filed an eviction petition in 2015 against the petitioner's husband in respect of a property. Eviction was sought under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Petitioner's husband had contested the proceedings by filing an application for leave to defend, which was dismissed vide the order of the Rent Controller. Consequently, the eviction petition was allowed.
About one month after the dismissal of the objections filed by petitioner's husband, the petitioner herself filed objections to the execution of the eviction order. The said objections were dismissed by the order of the Rent Controller dated 16.04.2019.
Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner had then filed the appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court observed thus:
"The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is exercised only to ensure that the courts and tribunals remain confined to their respective jurisdictions and exercise the same in accordance with the fundamental principles of law and justice. The High Court is generally not called upon, under Article 227, to reappraise evidence or correct every error of law or fact."
"The jurisdiction is to be exercised even more sparingly when challenge is to orders of the Rent Controller and the Tribunal under the Act."
Reliance was placed on Koyilerian Janaki and Others vs. Rent Controller (Munsiff), Cannanore and Others, where in the context of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the Supreme Court held,
"The proceedings in the present case arose under a special Act governing the landlord and tenant relationship and disputes. The Act does not provide any second appeal or revision to the High Court. The purpose behind for not providing such remedy is to give finality to the order passed under the Act. The power under Article 227 is exercisable where it is found by the High Court that due to a certain grave error an injustice has been caused to a party."
The Court was of the view that such an interference would be justified only when the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal is entirely arbitrary and perverse or in excess of jurisdiction.
"The matter has been considered on the materials placed before the Rent Controller and the Tribunal and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in that consideration so as to invite interference of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction," the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: JOHRINA BEGUM v. SUKHBIR SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 137
Click Here To Read Order