Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against BCCI Team Named 'Team India', Terms it a Sheer Waste of Time  ||  Bombay HC: No Absolute Right for Citizens to Access Public Offices  ||  Delhi HC: Suit Withdrawal After Compromise Doesn’t Result in Executable Decree  ||  Delhi HC: ITSC Abolition Doesn’t Void Settlement Pleas Filed Between Feb 1–Mar 31, 2021  ||  Rajasthan HC: State Must Set Up Trauma Centre, Art Institute; Temple Board Can Only Assist  ||  Kerala HC: LIC Cancer Cover Starts From First Diagnosis After Waiting Period, Not Expert Opinion  ||  Kerala HC: Spouse’s Ill Treatment of Children is Cruelty under Section 10(1) Divorce Act  ||  Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Sentenced to Death in Child Rape-Murder Case  ||  SC: Only Disclosure Leading to Weapon Recovery Admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act  ||  Supreme Court Orders Strict Enforcement on Helmets, Lane Discipline & Headlight Use    

Paramjeet Singh Vs. Mahavir Prasad - (High Court of Delhi) (28 Feb 2022)

High Court ought not to re-examine findings of fact in its supervisory jurisdiction, unless they are shown to be manifestly unreasonable or perverse

MANU/DE/0673/2022

Tenancy

By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the Petitioner-tenant assails an order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Rent Control Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the Respondent-landlord against an order of the Rent Controller, by which the eviction petition filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

The Tribunal has taken a view that, even in the absence of the will through which the landlord claimed sole ownership of the suit property, the eviction petition would be maintainable at his instance, as a co-owner.

The scope of interference with the view taken by the Tribunal under the Act is extremely limited. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Koyilerian Janaki and Others vs. Rent Controller (Munsiff), Cannanore and Others lays down that, where a special statute governs the relationship between the landlord and tenant and provides for an appeal, the High Court ought not to re-examine findings of fact in its supervisory jurisdiction, unless they are shown to be manifestly unreasonable or perverse.

The Tribunal has considered the evidence on record to come to a conclusion that father of the Respondent was the landlord in respect of the suit property. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has noticed the tenant's own case that, he was inducted into the property by Late Shri Deep Chand (Father of the Respondent). The Tribunal has also referred to the reply given by the tenant to the legal notice, and to a rent note, to conclude that, the tenant had failed to establish that suit property is owned by the Trust. The Tribunal is the final arbiter of facts. There is no merit in the present petition. Petition dismissed.

Tags : EVICTION   JURISDICTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved