P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved