Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 22 of drc act in M/S Abhishek Buildcon Pvt Ltd vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 30 June, 2020Matching Fragments
2. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is taken up for consideration in view of the verdict of this Court in "Nawal Kishore vs. Mohd. Yakub" in CM(M) 1256/2012 decided on 24.08.2017 to the extent of parameters as laid down in Jasbir Singh Vs. Manjit Kaur MANU/DE/4346/2013, wherein it has been held that though the right of second appeal in terms of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act, 1958) with Section 39 of the said enactment having been deleted w.e.f. 01.12.1988, this Court nevertheless can consider in its supervisory jurisdiction as to whether the functionaries under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court have acted within their bounds and where it results into manifest miscarriage of justice but not in all cases to correct mere errors and that where there are two views possible and the view adopted by the lower Court is reasonable and a plausible one, this Court would not be justified in interfering in such cases merely to arrive at different view in the matter.
3. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. M/s Arya Dharam Seva Sangh filed an Eviction Petition No.22/08 with previous No.E-992/2003 on 17.07.2003 against the respondent herein i.e. the North Delhi Municipal Council under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act, 1958 contending to the effect that the premises 1, Doctor's Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi was let out by the said petitioner M/s Arya Dharam Seva Sangh, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.172/- exclusive of house tax, electricity, water and other charges had been sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with for the possession of the same by the respondent herein to the SOS Children's Villages of India, a non-Governmental organization vide an agreement dated 23.03.1981 without the consent of the petitioner/ landlord and that the respondent had illegally and unauthorizedly been shifted in a portion of the said property. Inter alia the petitioner of the said Eviction Petition No.E-992/2003 filed on 17.07.2003 submitted that this fact of the subletting, assignment and otherwise parting with the possession of the suit premises to the SOS Children's Villages of India by the respondent came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 24.03.2003 and on 05.05.2003 when the respondent's advocate supplied a copy of the agreement dated 23.03.1981 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that it was earlier under the impression that the premises were being used as Udayan, a house for keeping orphan babies by the SOS Children's Villages of India, a Non Governmental Organisation by the respondent NDMC.
6. The respondent through its written statement before the learned ARC submitted that the facts averred in the eviction petition did not disclose whether the respondent had sublet or assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. Inter alia the respondent has submitted that as long as the tenant retained the right to possession, there is no parting with the possession in terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act, 1958 and that there was no subletting, as Clause 6 of the agreement dated 23.03.1981 categorically stated that the premises are free of any rent, electricity charges and water charges and that in fact the maintenance cost of the premises was to be borne by the respondent and the respondent had been from time to time giving grants to the NGO and even the salaries of the employees were being given by the respondent as per the agreement. It was further submitted by the respondent that the legal possession of the premises had always been retained by the respondent.
8. The respondent has thus reiterated that so long there has been no parting with the possession in terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act, 1958 and that there was no subletting as Clause 6 of the agreement dated 23.03.1981 categorically stated that the premises were free of any rent, electricity charges and water charges and that in fact the maintenance cost of the premises was to be borne by the respondent and the respondent had been from time to time giving grants to the NGO and even the salaries of the employees were being given by the respondent as per the agreement. It has also been submitted by the respondent that the legal possession of the premises in question had always been retained by the respondent and the respondent had denied that the full control on the premises in question was with the SOS Children's Villages of India.