1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] DISTRICT JUDGE-VIII & ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Rent [CASE NUMBER] [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY], Resident of 5/114, Gali No. 5, Nirankari Colony, Delhi-110009 Presently residing at 999/3, Punjab Mata Nagar, Ludhiana thorugh Special Attorney Sh. [ENTITY] husband of appellant. Appellant Versus Sh. [ENTITY], S/o Late Sh. [ENTITY], R/o H.No. 5/114, First Floor, Gali No. 5, Nirankari Colony, Delhi-110009 Respondent [ENTITY]
The present appeal under [SECTION] of the [ACT]hereinafter referred to as the [ACT]) is filed [ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh against the order dated 10/5/2010 passed by Ld. Addl. Rent Controller, whereby the eviction petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] by the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved with the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that the Ld. ARC erred in holding that the onus of rate of rent and payment of rent lays on the landlord. He averred that it lies on the tenant. He urged that the Ld. ARC did not give findings on the rate of rent. He submitted that as per the evidence on record the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent. He alleged that the Ld. ARC failed to notice that the case was filed on 11.11.2003 and as per [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is the duty of the tenant to pay the rent every month and on his failing to do so he shall be liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum from the date from which the arrears are due till payment. He contended that the Ld. ARC failed to give any findings on the last date of payment made by the respondent. He urged that the findings of the Ld. ARC are against the evidence on record and basic tenets of law.
[ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relied on decisions in [ENTITY] vs. Nanilal Harakchand Shah & Ors. - (2002) 6 SCC 404; [ENTITY] vs. Mst. Gopi & Anr. - AIR 1980 SC 1754; [ENTITY] vs. Tulshiram Kalu Kumawat - 1992 (1) RCR 118 (SC); [PRECEDENT]; [ENTITY] vs. Sheela Wanti & Anr. - 2009 (1) RCR 287 (Del); M/s. [PRECEDENT]; and [ENTITY] vs. Nanee Printers & Ors.
- [PRECEDENT], in support of his contentions.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. ARC. The counsel averred that the present appeal has no merits and should be dismissed forthwith.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. On perusal of the appeal filed by the appellant and also [ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant, it is apparent that there are several disputed question of facts. But, it is well settled that under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the ARCT is to act as an appellate court only on a question of law.
6. In this regards, our Delhi High Court observed as under in [PRECEDENT]:
"12. I also consider that the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into an area which was prohibited. It is prohibited for Additional Rent Control Tribunal to re-appreciate the facts and change the finding of fact given by Additional Rent Controller."
7. Also, in [PRECEDENT] our Delhi High Court observed as under:
"7. If the matter is examined in terms aforesaid, it will be found that it is not the function of this Court to re- appraise the evidence. There are concurrent findings by both the courts below, i.e., the ARC and the ARCT.
[ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh In fact, under [SECTION] of the said Act, the ARCT is to act as an appellate court only on a question of law."
8. Furthermore in [PRECEDENT] our Delhi High Court observed as under:
"9. An important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the legislature in its wisdom has amended the said Act whereby the appeal to the Tribunal under [SECTION] of the said Act has been confined to only a question of law and second appeal to this Court has been abolished. "
9. And also in [PRECEDENT], our Delhi High Court observed as under:
"5. It cannot lost sight under the provisions of the said Act that the appeal lies to the Tribunal under [SECTION] of the said Act only on a question of law. This was in terms of the legislative intent as a conscious [ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh decision was taken to amend the said provision in December 1988 prior whereto the appeal was both on a question of law and on a question of fact. Thus the scope of scrutiny itself by the Tribunal was said to be restrictive and the Additional Rent Controller was construed to be a final Court for appreciation of evidence. The present proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT] can hardly be converted into a court of second appeal. It is only in case of a patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction would an intereference be called for. The legal position in this behalf has been made clear in the judgment of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]. In fact in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustqim and Ors. MANU/SC/0066/1983 : [1984]1SCR211 , it has been observed that mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Courts under [SECTION] of the [ACT], which jurisdiction is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. These aspects have been [ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh emphasised to set forth the contours within which the impugned orders have to be scrutinised."
10. The issues as to rate of rent, onus of proving rate of rent and payment of rent lays on the landlord/tenant, period of non- payment of rent etc. are questions of fact and can be decided by Ld. ARC and not at the appellate stage. Also, the question of decision as to rate of rent, onus of proving rate of rent and payment of rent, period of non-payment of rent, last period for which rent paid etc. would arise had the appellant been able to prove the ingredients of [SECTION]. Since, the Ld. ARC dismissed the eviction petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] by the appellant, thus, the aforesaid issues were irrelevant for him to decide. Furthermore, for the same reasons, the question of 15% interest under the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] does not arise.
11. The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in [ENTITY]'s case (supra); [ENTITY] 's case (supra); [ENTITY] 's case (supra); [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh Pushpawati 's case (supra); [ENTITY] 's case (supra); M/s. Nopany Investments (P.) Ltd. 's case (supra); and [ENTITY] 's case (supra) are of no assistance as the issues raised in the present appeal can only be dealt by the ARC and as it is same is a question of fact and cannot be dealt with by the ARCT.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merits in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned order of ARC is upheld and shall remain undisturbed.
13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment be sent to the server (www delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The trial court record be returned along with the copy of this judgment. The file of the appeal be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open court on this 16th day of September, 2010 ([ENTITY] ) DISTRICT JUDGE-VIII & ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL ROHINI COURTS:
DELHI [ENTITY] Vs. Jasvinder Singh