Article 227 | Scope Of Supervisory Jurisdiction Limited To Correction Of Jurisdictional Errors/ Perverse View Taken By Court/ Tribunal: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correction of jurisdictional errors or cases where a view taken by the court or tribunal is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable court could have taken the same view.

Justice Prateek Jalan made this observation while dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, being the Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts.

The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 1 against an order of the Additional Rent Controller by which her application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 being landlords filed eviction proceedings against the respondent no.1 tenant under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of the suit property. The landlords claimed that the tenant was in possession of the suit property at a rent of Rs. 1,400 per month which had not been paid since 01.06.2005. They also claimed that she had acquired vacant possession of another property.

The eviction proceedings were proceeded ex-parte against the tenant, recording that she had failed to appear despite service of summons. After examination of the petitioner, the Trial Court had allowed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. The tenant had then filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on 29.08.2012.

In the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, the Additional Rent Controller had examined the tenant as well as the record clerk from the office of BSES Ltd., on behalf of the tenant. The father of the petitioner was examined on his behalf. The Additional Rent Controller had the dismissed the application by an order dated 08.02.2019, holding that sufficient time had been granted to the tenant for filing of the reply and she was, therefore, rightly proceeded ex- parte.

In appeal under Section 38 of the Act, the Tribunal had reversed the view taken by the Additional Rent Controller on both points. The Tribunal had held that the ARC has erred in emphasizing the inconsistencies in testimony of the tenant as to the timings of her visits to the two offices of the BSES Ltd.

Observing that the view taken by the Tribunal did not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court said:

"The scope of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is limited to correction of jurisdictional errors or cases where a view taken by the court or tribunal is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable court could have taken the same view. In the context of an order allowing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, the Supreme Court, in the recent judgment of Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel1 has inter alia held that the High Court should interfere only in very limited circumstances."

Reliance was placed on e Supreme Court judgment in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel.

The Court added that the view taken by the Tribunal was based upon an assessment of the evidence before it and that the conclusions reached by it were not perverse or manifestly unreasonable.

"On the question of service of summons, the Tribunal has come to a clear conclusion that the findings of the ARC rejecting the tenant's testimony were unjustified. The Tribunal has further found that summons were not served by registered post as directed, and that the transferee court did not issue notice to the tenant at all. Such matters are well within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and do not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution," the Court observed.

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: SHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR.

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156

Click Here To Read Order