High Court of Delhi

Satish Kumar & Anr. v. Kanwar Raj Singh

MANU/DE/0615/2020

25.02.2020

Tenancy

Supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct errors of facts or of law unless errors are manifest and apparent on face of proceedings

Present petition challenges the order passed by the Trial Court in Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1) (e) and 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( ‘DRC Act’) whereby an application for leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent has filed an eviction petition in respect of a tenanted shop.

It is a settled law, in revision, this Court can interfere only if the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it has or exercised the same in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. The supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of facts or of law unless the errors are manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings. It is also a trite law while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court will not go beyond what is pleaded in the leave to defend application as the same would be permitting additional grounds and thus extending the period of limitation.

In R.K.Bhatnagar vs Sushila Bhargav it was held that, if a tenant does not file any site plan then the site plan filed by the owner along with petition would be deemed to be correct. Even otherwise, the imperfectness of title of premises can neither stand in way of eviction petition nor can a tenant be allowed to raise plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in landlord and that too when tenant has been paying rent to landlord as held in Puran Chand Aggarwal vs Lekh Raj. In the present case, there is sufficient material to show the Petitioners had attorned to the Respondent.

Admittedly, eviction petition has been filed by the Respondent for his need as also for the need of his six other family members. It is settled law a landlord can choose the property from where he intends to carry on his business. A bare perusal of the impugned order does show the learned Trial Court has also considered the issues raised and it needs no interference. Even otherwise in revision, the powers of this Court are limited and it is not open to revisit or relook the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The petition is thus dismissed, being devoid of merits.

Tags : Bonafide need Eviction Legality

Share :