Sunita Chauhan @ Gayatri Devi v. Virender Singh Gusain

1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (South), Saket, New Delhi dated 18.4.2013 by which the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in first appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) set aside the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 26.5.2012 dismissing the eviction 2014:DHC:3452 petition filed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. As per the provision of Section 14(1)(h), if a tenant acquires vacant physical possession of alternative accommodation, he loses protection of the Act and is liable to be evicted.

2. The Tribunal has arrived at a finding of existence of alternative accommodation on the basis that the tenant/petitioner herein had got a ration card showing her residence at the alternative premises being 48, DDA Flats, CSP, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and once that was so, onus was upon the petitioner/tenant to show that she had not shifted to the other address. In fact, the petitioner was guilty of concealing the original ration card because the factum of issuing of ration card at the address of the alternative premises at 48, DDA Flats, CSP, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was got proved by the landlord/respondent by means of summoning of the witnesses from the Government with the record of issuing of the ration card. For this purpose the officials were summoned from the Food and Supply Department of Government of NCT of Delhi as PW-2 and PW-3. DW1/1 is the copy of the ration card which was produced by the tenant herself, of course, without producing the original.

3. In view of the aforesaid, the Additional Rent Control Tribunal has given the following conclusions:- “18. I do not agree with the observation of the Ld. Rent Controller that the ration card cannot be a proof of residence. In support of this contention, the landlord had relied upon, and rightly so, observations to such effect in Hukum Chand and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 34 (1998), Delhi Law Times 66.

19. Given the evidence led, it is clear that the petitioner has successfully proved that the tenant had obtained a ration card indicating herself to be the head of the family (with her husband and others described as members of the said family) for the address of the other flat some time in February, 2005. From this, it naturally follows that she was proclaiming herself to be ordinarily a resident of the said address. With this proof having been brought on record, the burden shifted to the tenant to justify issuance of the ration card and give appropriate explanation. The explanation given in the pleading has not been supported by any concrete material in the form of evidence nor the said theory is believable. It rather stands belied and punctured. Thus, the tenant has failed to discharge her burden to explain the circumstances.

20. In above facts and circumstances, the petitioner must be held to have brought home his case for eviction under section 14 (1) (h) DRC Act.” (underlining added)

4. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lies only if there is a clear cut perversity in the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal. If two views are possible, this Court will not interfere in the exercise of its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because two views are possible, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed to question one possible and plausible view taken by the court below.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne