> t v» a-2 % 12.02.2008 Present. Chaudhary,Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr.B.N. Gupta,Advocatefor the respondent + * CM No. 15977/2007in CMfM) No. lQ37/?nn7 In view of the reasons stated in the applicationthe same is allowed and the order dated 6.11.2007 dismissingthe petitionfor non-prosecution is recalled. CM(M) No.1037/2007 In this petitionthe petitionertenant impugnsthe order dated 8.2.2007 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 94/2006. The respondent landlady has filed the eviction petition under Section 14(l){a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and another petition under Section 14(l)(b) had also been preferred. The defence set up by the petitioner herein was that the respondentwas not the owner of the suit premises. The petitioner claimedownershipof the premisesand contendedthat the premises had mortgaged with the respondentto secure a loan obtained by him from the respondent. The learned Additional Rent Controller came to the finding of fact that the premises had been transferred to the respondentby the petitionerby executingvariousdocuments such as registered power of attorney. Will, affidavit, agreement to sell etc. The petitioner, in fact, admitted his signatures on the documents though it was his case that the said documents have been created as a result of a fraud played by the respondent. This defence has not been accepted by the Additional Rent Controller, Signing Date:03.07.2024 15:44:00 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified These are findingsoffacts. The learned AdditionalRent Controller,Delhi, passedan order underSection15(1) of the Act by giving the petitionerbenefitunder Section 14(2) of the Act directing him to pay or deposit rent @ Rs.2000/- per month and also requiring him to pay the same in future. However,the petitionunderSection14(l)(b)of the Act was dismissed. Againstthat order the petitionerfiled an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugnedorder. The Tribunal has taken a view that the petitioner herein did not raise any question of law and that the appeal under Section38 of the Act was maintainableonly in respectof a question of law. Before me, learned counsel for the petitionerargues that his clienthas been defraudedby the respondent. He submitsthatthere was no agreement to sell etc. and that merely a loan transaction had been entered into and in pursuancethereofthe property was mortgaged with the respondent. These are the questions of fact which has been determinedby the learnedRent Controller. They do not raise a question of law and the petitioner is unable to show that any question of law was raised before the Tribunal which the Tribunal has failed to appreciate. In view of the aforesaid I find no merit in the petition. Dismissed. February 12, 2008 VIPIN SANGHI,J. aj