Indermeet Kaur, J.@mdashThe order impugned before this Court is the order dated 25.01.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal which has reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 21.05.1999.
2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlady Sunita Rani against her tenant Pushpa Rani u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Prior to filing of the eviction petition, a legal notice dated 18.09.1997 was served upon the respondent. This legal notice made a reference of two addresses of the tenant i.e. (i) Shop No. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi and (ii) residential address No. 2484/3D, Park Marg, Street No. 8, Rajgarh Extension, Delhi-110031.
3. Thereafter in the eviction petition, the address of the respondent was shown only as the first address i.e. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi. In the eviction petition, it has been contended that the legal notice had been sent to the tenant at two addresses; i.e. at the disputed premises as also his residential address but tenant was thereafter served by affixation. The eviction petition has however mentioned the address of the tenanted premises alone which as per the contention of the landlord is the requirement of a legal notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
4. Record discloses that the legal notice sent at his second address had come back with the report that his address has since changed. Service report of the tenant in the eviction petition (shop No. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi) had come back with the remarks that the premises are lying locked. In these circumstances, the tenant was proceeded ex-parte. This ex-parte judgment dated 01.06.1998 was passed in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. The possession of the premises was also taken over by the landlord sometime in December, 1998. On 29.01.1999, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") had been filed by the tenant seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree dated 01.06.1998. Contention being that she was never served with the summons of the eviction petition and she learnt about it only on 28.01.1999 when the bailiff had come to take possession; an application for restitution had also been filed.
5. The ARC vide order dated 21.05.1999 accepted the submissions made by the tenant; the ex-parte decree was set aside. The ARC had noted that although the legal notice had been sent at both the addresses i.e. residential address as also the shop No. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi yet the eviction petition had not disclosed the residential address which was a material concealment; bonafides of the landlord were suspicious; the petitioner appears to have played a fraud upon the tenant; accordingly, the ex-parte decree was set aside and application for restitution was allowed in favour of the tenant.
6. The impugned order i.e. ARCT had reversed this finding of the ARC. The impugned order had inter-alia in para 15 noted as follows:-
I have carefully checked the record of the eviction petition. Indeed envelopes are enclosed with it which showed that notice of demand could not be served on Smt. Pushpa Rani at her residential address and therefore Smt. Sunit was justified in not repeating this incorrect address in the eviction petition at the time of issuing processes to Smt. Pushpa Rani. The finding of Ld. ARC is not based on record or proper appreciation of the material. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that Smt. Sunita filed petition for eviction only against Smt. Pushpa Rani even though she knew that the original tenant Shri Kishor Bhalla had left other heirs also, Smt. Pushpa invited the attention to the copy of the first page of the plaint filed by her against husband of Smt. Sunita namely Sh. Prem Kumar which showed that there were other heirs along with her as plaintiffs in the said suit. The suit was for injunction. The contention of Smt. Pushpa Rani was from this plaint but Sunita''s husband to notice and therefore, Sunita must have known that there was other heirs who have inherited the tenancy and, therefore, notice of demand should have been given and eviction petition should have been filed against all of them.
7. This is a fact finding arrived at by the ARCT after examining the record himself; he had noted that the notice of demand sent to Smt. Pushpa Rani at her residential address had come back with the remarks that her address has since changed. In this view of the matter, the eviction petition has mentioned only the shop address of the tenant. Further contention of the petitioner that the landlord was aware of this residential address of the tenant in view of the fact that a suit had been filed by the tenant (suit for injunction) of which summons had been served upon the legal representatives of the defendant Prem Kumar on 03.11.1998 which had disclosed the complete address as also the names of the legal representatives of the original tenant is a submission which has been noted and a reasoned finding had been returned which is to the effect that the eviction petition had been filed in December, 1997; ex-parte decree had been obtained on 30.04.1998; the summons in the injunction suit were purportedly served upon Prem Kumar on 03.11.1998 which would be seven months after the date of the ex-parte decree and as such this submission of the tenant was rightly noted by the ARCT to carry no weight. These are fact findings which have been returned by the RCT. This Court sitting in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and can interfere with the findings only if there is a manifest injustice or an illegality which has been committed by the court below. No such illegality has been pointed out. Petition is without any merit.
8. Dismissed.
