Constitution of India: Art.227 – Supervisory control by High Court – Eviction petition filed u/s.14 of Delhi Rent Control, 1958 on the ground that tenanted premises was sub-let to three medical practitioners without consent of landlord – Rent Controller dismissed the petition – Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Rent controller and ordered eviction – Tenants invoked provisions of Art.227 before the High Court – High Court upset the order of eviction passed by the appellate tribunal – On appeal, Held: Whether the decision of High Court in upsetting order of eviction passed by Appellate Tribunal suffered from any element of perversity or not – High Court has restrictive nature of jurisdiction u/Art.227 – There are three situations as to when a finding on facts or questions of law would be perverse (a) Erroneous on account of nonconsideration of material evidence, or (b) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (c) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law – There was overstepping of this boundary by the supervisory Court – High Court had gone deep into the factual arena to disagree with the fact finding forum – There is no dispute that the three medical practitioners were in occupation of part of the premises in question – The onus was on the tenants to establish the degree of control they were maintaining over the said premises for repelling the plea of sub-letting – Many factors were considered by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which its decision was against the tenants – Hence, there was no perversity on the basis of which High Court could have interfered – High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court u/Art. 227 which is impermissible – High Court judgment set aside – Appellate Tribunal’s finding restored – Delhi Rent Control, 1958 – s.14(1)(b). Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the judgment under appeal had gone deep into the factual arena to disagree with the final fact-finding forum. There is no dispute that the three medical practitioners were in occupation of part of the premises in question. The onus, under such circumstances, was on the respondents to establish the degree of control they were maintaining over the said premises for repelling the plea of subletting or assignment or parting with possession. From the passage of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sales Ltd., it transpires that it was also the respondents’ obligation to demonstrate that there was no monetary consideration on the basis of which the medical practitioners were allowed to operate from the subject premises. Though, it was a chemist shop, evidence reveals that the portion of the premises of which the three medical practitioners were in occupation consisted of individual cabins and had separate telephone connections. These are the factors, on the basis of which, the Appellate Tribunal came to its conclusion against the respondents. [Para 12][289-D-F]
2. There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. The High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible. The finding of the High Court that the appellate forum’s decision was perverse and the manner in which such finding was arrived at was itself perverse. [Para 13][291-E-F]
Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. (2017) 15 SCC
230 : [2017] 7 SCR 872; Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors. v. Idrish Ali Laskar (2018) 2 SCC 485 : [2018]
1 SCR 272; Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1998) 3 SCC 1 : [1998] 1 SCR
711 – relied on.
Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) & Ors. v. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 217 : [2009] 15 SCR 558; Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr. v. S Chokesiri & Co. (1989) 1 SCC 19 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 310; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke & Anr. v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 622 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 696; Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty (1987) 4 SCC 161 : [1987] 3 SCR 680; Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan & Ors. (1988)
3 SCC 57 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 325; Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H. C. Sharma & Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 70 : [1988] 1 SCR 1023 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.