Date of Judgment:
23rd February 2022
Bench:
Vineet Saran, J.
Aniruddha Bose, J.
Parties:
Appellant – M/s. Puri Investments.
Respondents – M/s. Young Friends and Co. And Ors.
Subject
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has held that while assailing the order given by the Delhi High court that while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction prescribed U/Art. 227 of the Indian Constitution, the court cannot act as an appellate body i.e.,( Supreme Court) to evaluate the evidence and can only intervene in the judgment passed by the lower court if the observation or findings are arbitrary.
Legal Provisions
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
- Section 14 – which states the circumstances under which a landlord can evict the tenant for the same the landlord has to make an application to the Controller office for the recovery of the immovable property/possession.
Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 227 – states that each High Court shall have authority over all courts and tribunals in the territories in which it practices (apart from a court shaped under a law related to military or armed forces).
- Article 136 – states that the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, give special permission to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed or made by any court or tribunal in India's territory.
BRIEF FACTS
- In this instant petition where the respondents were operating a pharmacy business in a shop room owned by the appellant(landlord), seeking to take back the possession of the leased shop room located in Central Delhi, the landlord initiated an eviction suit U/s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
- The appellant contested that the suit for eviction was instituted against the lessee because the said premises was sublet to another firm without taking due permission of the landlord.
- The allegations put forth by the appellant in his application are that the lessee sublet the premises to three other medical practitioners and two other firms to operate their business.
- Subsequently, in the complaint filed by the appellant before the office of Additional Rent Controller, the appellant failed to prove that there were any subletting of the contested premises in favour of the alleged firms/entities and it was also observed that respondent no. 5 (Young Friends and Co) was a pre-existing entity of the tenant itself and the same was incorporated with him.
- Per contra, the Appellate authority observed that the subletting of the premises as alleged by the appellant were true, further reversing the decision of the authority and passed an order for eviction on the grounds of sub-letting of the premises without prior written permission from the landlord.
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents applied to the Hon’ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India opposing the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the Hon’ble High Court’s decision to overturn the Appellate Tribunal’s order was due to the findings being arbitrary/perverse or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANTS
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the Subletting had been proven in front of the ultimate fact-finding forum and the appellate court had returned conclusions on facts. Thus, in this case the High Court's supervisory authority should not have overturned the Appellate Tribunal's decision.
- Further the Counsels for the appellant pleaded that the order passed by the Appellate tribunal was after due appreciation of the evidence attached by the applicant and had no arbitrary sense of reasoning attached to the order which would have attracted the interference of the Hon’ble High Court U/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Likewise, the Counsels for the appellant to substantiate their claim for the subletting, relied on a chain of similar judgments dealing with the like issue of occupation by a person not being a tenant but was allowed to induct their businesses by the lawful tenant would amount to sub-letting the premises.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the contended that to prove the mischief of sub-letting the premises by the lawful tenant lies on the landlord itself, he placed reliance on similar judgments where this was held to be the case where the landlord/owner was pursued to prove the same before the court.
- Furthermore, the counsel for the respondents argued that the sub-letting of the premises was in control of the lawful tenant and he controlled the timely entry and exit of the medical practitioner as well as the firms, and none of the occupants were given complete access to the premise as opposed to the agreement between the landlord and the tenant.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there was no disagreement about the respondents' possession of the retail premises The HC had stated that it was only compelled to overturn the Appellate Tribunal's verdict if the findings were erroneous. As a result, the HC was aware of the restricted character of Article 227.
- The Hon’ble Court placed reliance on the case of Bharat Sales Ltd. V. Life Insurance Corporation of India, where the Court reasoned that sub-letting occurs when the tenant relinquishes possession of the tenanted housing, in whole or in part, and transfers exclusive possession to another person. This arrangement is plainly the result of a mutual agreement or understanding between the renter and the person to whom ownership is handed.
- The court further stated that the monetary consideration may have been paid covertly, and the law does not require such payment to be shown by positive proof and the court is free to form its reasoning and conclusions on the facts of the case.
- The Hon’ble Court further opined that in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the HC assessed the results through the lens of an Appellate Court rather than through the lens of a Supervisory Court, which is not permitted.
- Additionally, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the High Court overstepped its supervisory jurisdiction by reappreciating the facts and evidence by delving into the factual realm to dispute with the fact-finding forum’s findings. Also, after due perusal by the court, it was found that occupant medical practitioners had private cabins and telephone connections in the premises, according to the evidence on record.
- Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal's decision was not perverse/arbitrary and that the High Court's decision was perverse in and of itself.
CONCLUSION
Allowing the appeal, the Court ordered the respondents to pay the appellant rent at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per month beginning on November 14, 2018, and continuing until they depart the premises. Further, The respondents were ordered to remove the relevant premises within 53 weeks. Additionally, the respondents were directed to make a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- lacs within one from the date of the judgment passed and Rs. 12,00,000/- lacs within six months.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
