TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi. 3. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the premises were let out to respondent No.2, Delhi Transport Corporation [for short DTC ], on a monthly rental of ₹ 3500/-. DTC has sublet/assigned the premises in favour of respondent No.1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi [for short MCD ] and parted with possession in favour of MCD without the written consent of the appellants. Therefore, both DTC and MCD were liable for eviction. The High Court has noticed the sequence of events since the transport services were being run by Gwalior Northern India Transport Company (for short GNIT ) to the time when DTC stepped into its shoes. The appellants claimed that the tenancy of the premises was with DTC. MCD had, however, claimed that the legal possession was retained by MCD; rent was being paid by MCD to DTC. 4. The ARC by an order dated 11th November, 1989, upon consideration of the rival contentions, held: 19. Admittedly it is respondent No.2 (MCD) who is in possession of the premises in question. It is also admitted that respondent No.2 (MCD) pays a sum of ₹ 3500/- as rent to respondent No.1 (DTC) by way of cheques. It is not the case of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the same entity which changed its form from one to another. Thus it cannot be said that it was a case of sub-letting under any circumstances. The orders passed by learned ARC and learned ARTC are liable to be set aside for non application of law and non consideration of facts at all. 8. The objection raised by the appellants to the entertainment of the petition under Article 227, on the ground of laches, has been rejected with the following observations: The respondent in this case has strongly objected to entertaining the petition on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of this power, interfering with the orders of the Court of Tribunal has to be done where this Court finds that there was a serious dereliction of duty and blatant violation of the fundamental principles of law and justice and where, the order caused grave injustice and needs to be corrected. Although the petitioner herein had not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal below but that cannot prevent his Court from correcting the patent illegality writ large on the face of the orders of the ARC and Tribunal below. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents submits that the High Court was fully justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct the patent, factual and legal errors committed by ARC and ARCT. She has emphasised the entire history of transformation of GNIT into DTC. According to the learned counsel, there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the predecessor of the appellants and GNIT. The payment of ₹ 3500/- per month was a misnomer. The plot vested in the Government under the agreement dated 23rd April, 1948, therefore, GNIT was incompetent to transfer any perpetual lease to Bharat Singh. The amount of ₹ 3500/- was being paid to Bharat Singh as compensation for the amount spent by him on behalf of GNIT for construction of the depot. She further submits that the land vested in DDA, i.e., Government. Therefore, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. In any case, the appellants have failed to prove that there has been any parting with possession, without the written consent of the landlord. The ARC and ARCT ignored vital documents in concluding that there has been subletting by DTC to MCD. In fact, MCD has retained the legal possession all along. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice. 14. In our opinion, the High Court in this case, has traveled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Both ARC and ARCT had acted within the limits of the jurisdiction vested in them. The conclusions reached cannot be said to be based on no evidence. All relevant material has been taken into consideration. Therefore, there was hardly any justificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as crystallized by the ARC are as follows:- (i) The tenant has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession. (ii) It may be in respect of the whole or any part of the premises. (iii) Such subletting etc has taken place on or after the 9th day of June, 1952. (iv) Such subletting etc has taken place without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. (v) The first and the foremost ground that requires to be seen is whether relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the petitioners and respondent No.1 or not. Thereafter in Para 9 ARC observes :- Whether relationship of landlord and tenant was contemplated or not is the most important fact which has to be seen. 18. Thereafter, ARC proceeds to consider the implications of the agreement dated 10th November, 1944, wherein LBS agreed to develop the plot of land. He is referred to as the prospective purchaser. The lease with GNIT was provided for, LBS was to pay all taxes. GNIT had to pay 10% p.a. of the entire cost of the building. GNIT were to execute a ten year lease. Rent of ₹ 3500/- was regularly paid. The ARC noticed that Government of India had moved the Rent Controller, New Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order as such with the dismissal of the appellant is application for condonation of delay - this appeal meets the same fate. Having observed as such, the ARCT considered the appeal on merits on the assumption that the application of MCD for condonation of delay has been allowed, though it had not been allowed. The ARCT thereafter considered the entire gamut of facts and circumstances in detail. The ARCT noticed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the MCD and considered each submission in detail. 20. It was submitted that ARC had failed to distinguish the three expressions: sublet, assigned and otherwise parted with possession. This was answered as follows: I feel that the submissions made by learned counsel Sh.Chachra do not gather any support from the records because the learned ARC has dealt with insufficient details of the needed requirements and it was only thereafter that he came to a conclusion of the respondent/DTC having sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the demised premises in favour of this appellant. For attracting the applicability of a ground of eviction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, it has either to be direct circumstance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ationship of landlord and tenant between LBS and various statutory entities, in succession. The transformation of GNIT, through DTS to DTC was duly noticed, and dilated upon. It was noticed that DTC which was a government undertaking, was a successor in interest of a private transport company. It was further noticed that the land underneath the superstructure / the demised premises might or might not belong to the government and the superstructure was built around May, 1948 by predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 3 and an amount of ₹ 3,500/- per month was agreed to be paid being a fair return against the investment made towards construction of superstructure . The submission that ₹ 3,500/- per month was paid as compensation for construction of the superstructure was considered and rejected with the observations :- The submission of appellant's Ld. Counsel that the amount was agreed to be paid only with a vie to compensate the predecessor-in- interest of respondents 1 to 3 and was not the rental of the super-structure does not seem to be carrying any weight and to my mind this submission cannot stand because the moment, we speak of compensation - it indic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the peculiar circumstances of this case. We may briefly indicate the reasons for saying so:- (i) Initially the appellants filed a petition for eviction against DTC and MCD. They had clarified that MCD has been impleaded only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (ii) Decree of eviction was passed. DTC lost in appeal, lost in RCSA in the High Court. However, the High Court clarified it shall have no bearing on the appeal filed by MCD. The order dated 31/01/2001, passed by the High Court in CM (M) No.31 of 2001 reads as under:- There is a concurrent findings of facts and law against the petitioner. It is not for this Court to substantiate for judgment over the judgment of the Court below through the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. I am informed that the MCD has challenged the impugned order before the Rent Control Tribunal. Dismissal of this petition shall have no bearing on the determination of the Appeal filed by the MCD. Following the aforesaid order, RCSA No: 17/2001 CMs 74-75/2001 filed by the MCD was also dismissed vide order dated 03/09/2004, with the following observations:- It appears that the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitution of India. However using the aforesaid order of the High Court as an excuse, MCD filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 09/04/2007, being CM (Main) No. 57/2007, challenging the order which was passed by the ARC dated 11/11/1989 and the order passed by ARCT dated 12/3/2001. At this stage, in our opinion, the High Court failed to bestow proper attention to the objections taken by the appellants to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Proceedings under Article 227 can be initiated in the absence of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy. In the present case, MCD had consciously withdrawn RCSA which had been filed under Section 39(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appeal had been filed against the order of the ARCT dated 12.3.2001. However, the objection on the ground of delay and laches was brushed aside by the High Court on two wholly untenable grounds, i.e:- (i) The orders passed by the ARC and ARCT suffered from patent illegality on the face of the orders. (ii) The MCD was bona fide prosecuting a case in the wrong court, due to mistake of law. 23. We are of the opinion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y devoid of any substantial question of law. This categoric admission of the MCD was ignored by the High Court whilst recording the finding that the orders of ARC and ARCT were passed in blatant violation of fundamental principles of law and justice. This apart in the peculiar facts of this case, noticed above, it could not be held that MCD had been bona fide prosecuting a case in the wrong court. It was seeking a remedy provided under Section 39(1) of DRC Act. Even this appeal was filed beyond limitation. It was delayed by 431 days. In the meantime possession of a part of the premises had already been taken by the appellants. Inspite of the objections having been raised to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, they were rejected by the High Court with the observations noticed in the earlier part of the judgment. In such circumstances, in our opinion, it was wholly inappropriate for the High Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 25. Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to reach injustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
