NIRMALA DEVI Vs. MAHARISHI BALMIKI MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There existed a Section 39 in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which provided for filing of a second appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of an Additional Rent Controller, but this Section 39 providing for filing of a second appeal was deleted by Act 57 of 1988.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner/tenant was sued for eviction on the ground of subletting and in such a petition on account of failure to deposit interim rent, defence of the petitioner/tenant was struck off. Not only the defence of the petitioner/tenant was struck off and as a result of which no evidence could be led by the petitioner/tenant, the petitioner/tenant did not even cross-examine the witness of the respondent/landlord PW-2 Dilip Kumar who filed his affidavit as Ex.PW2/1. Once there is no crossexamination, ordinarily the statement made in examination-in-chief can be accepted by the Court subject of course to exceptions, and which exceptions I do not find exist in the present case.

(3.) In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments decreeing the petition for subletting, and the same are not required to be interfered with, because, powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and are used where only grave injustice is apparent.