- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE applicant/respondent No.3 filed application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") for revision of rent and eviction of non-applicant/petitioner from the rented premise on the ground of personal bonafide necessity as well as sub-letting before Rent Tribunal, Kota. Rent Tribunal, Kota vide its order dated 17th April, 2006 allowed the application and while revising and increasing the rent, recorded a finding in respect of personal bonafide necessity as well as sub-letting in favour of applicant and consequently, granted a decree of eviction in his favour. Being aggrieved with the same, the tenant / non-applicant filed an appeal. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Kota vide its judgment dated 31st March, 2011 while reversing the finding in respect of personal bonafide necessity affirmed the finding of Rent Tribunal in respect of sub-letting and consequently, affirmed the decree of eviction passed by Rent Tribunal. Being aggrieved with the same, the tenant/petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court. Submission of learned counsel petitioner is that the application for eviction on the ground of sub-letting was filed alleging that non-applicant Rameshwar Prasad let out the rented premise to one Prem Kumar, whereas Prem Kumar was a member of his joint family, therefore, there was no sub-letting of the rented premise and findings of both, the Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal, are illegal and the same are liable to be set aside by this Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that Rameshwar alone was tenant and Prem Kumar was not residing in rented premise with him, rent note was executed by non-applicant Rameshwar Prasad alone and he, in his statement, admitted that he and his brother Prem Kumar, both are residing separately and he specifically admitted that now Prem Kumar is residing in the rented premise, meaning thereby, that he vacated the rented premise and instead of handing over the possession of rented premise to landlord, he handed over the possession of rented premise to Prem Kumar and sub-letted the rented premise. He also argued that no documentary evidence whatsoever was placed on record to show that Prem Kumar was a member of joint family and he was residing with non-applicant in the rented premise. He submitted that the question of sub-letting in the present case is purely a question of fact. There is a concurrent finding of Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal in this regard in favour of applicant, which cannot be interferred with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgments passed by Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal and other documents annexed with the writ petition. Rent Appellate Tribunal, while deciding issue relating to sub-letting, has observed that non-applicant/tenant has not produced any evidence in support of his case that his brother Prem Kumar was residing in the rented premise as a member of joint family with him. The rent note, in the present case, was executed by non-applicant Rameshwar Prasad. Non-applicant, in his cross-examination, admitted that Prem Kumar is now residing in the rented premise. Appellate Tribunal has also observed that neither any ration-card nor any documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that his brother Prem Kumar was residing along with him in the rented premise. So far as the payment of rent through cheques alleged to have been made by Shakun Khandelwal wife of Prem Kumar is concerned, the said fact was denied by applicant. The non-applicant/tenant did not prove the documents Ex.A1 to A11. The non-applicant in his cross-examination admitted that Ex.A1 to A8 are only counter folio of cheques wherein name of account holder, account number and name of bank are mentioned, but who has signed the cheques, is not proved. Similarly, non-applicant/tenant also admitted that all receipts of rent are issued in his name.
(3.) THIS Court, while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings of Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal in respect of sub-letting. The question of subletting, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is purely a question of fact and there is concurrent finding of facts in this regard by Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal, which cannot be interferred with by this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297), held, the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38), held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. ;