( 1 ) THIS PETITION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE judgment/order DATED 13. 12. 2002 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT controller, DELHI, IN PETITION NO. EX. 44/97 WHEREBY THE executing COURT HAS DISPOSED OF AN APPLICATION OF THE petitioner FILED ON 01. 11. 2002.

( 2 ) THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS NOTED IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE, ARE AS UNDER :

"that ON 28. 8. 02 THE BAILIFF OF THE COURT ALONG WITH shri RAJENDER PARSHAD, ONE OF THE DECREE-HOLDERS, CAME AT the PREMISES OF THE APPLICANT/judgment-DEBTOR ALONG WITH warrants OF POSSESSION WITH PERMISSION TO BREAK OPEN THE lock AND DOORS. IT IS STATED THAT ON SEEING THE EXT. SITE PLAN WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED AS EX. AW- 4/6 WHICH HAD SHOWN THE PREMISES IN RED COLOUR THAT THE portion SHOWN WAS OF PREMISES NO. OF 5546 AND NOT OF premises NO. 5562 IN POSSESSION OF THE APPLICANT/judgment- debtor. IT IS STATED THAT WARRANTS OF POSSESSION FOR premises SHOWN AS RED IN THE SITE PLAN EX. AW-4/6 ARE NOT for THAT PREMISES IN WHICH THE APPLICANT IS TENANT AND IS in POSSESSION. IT IS STATED THAT THE BAILIFF WENT UPTO the STAIRS AND PREPARED FALSE REPORT STATING THAT THERE was APPREHENSION OF BREACH OF PEACE AND THE WARRANTS OF possession CANNOT BE EXECUTED WITHOUT POLICE AID. IT IS stated THAT DECREE-HOLDER WANTS THE POSSESSION OF 5562, basti HARPHOOL SINGH, DELHI, WITH THE POLICE AID. THE applicant APPREHENDS THAT PREVIOUS REPORT MADE BY THE bailiff AND THE FALSE STATEMENT MADE BY THE DECREE- holder, THE DECREE-HOLDER WILL OBTAIN THE POLICE AID BY misrepresentation TO THIS COURT AND WILL CAUSE HARM TO the APPLICANT. HE HAS PRAYED THAT DECREE-HOLDER AND bailiff ARE LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED AND THEY BE PUNISHED and THE BAILIFF REPORT BE NOT LOOKED INTO. THE DECREE- holder HAD ORALLY CONTESTED THE APPLICATION. "

( 3 ) THE PETITIONER HAS REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN stated IN THE PETITION AND SUBMITS THAT POSSESSION OF premises NO. 5546, BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH, DELHI, HAS BEEN taken BY THE DECREE-HOLDER AND THAT HE CANNOT NOW TAKE possession OF PREMISES NO. 5562, BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH, delhi WHICH IS IN POSSESSION OF THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR.

( 4 ) HEARD COUNSEL. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS ONE OF THE MOST FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS and AN ABSOLUTE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW. A DECREE OF eviction AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF PREMISES that WAS UNDER THEIR TENANCY WAS GRANTED BY THE additional RENT CONTROLLER WHICH ORDER WAS CHALLENGED upto THE SUPREME COURT. THEREAFTER, ON ONE PRETEXT OR the OTHER, MULTIFARIOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED IN the EXECUTING COURT AND THE PETITIONERS HAVE AVOIDED handing OF POSSESSION OF THE TENANTED PREMISES SO FAR. THE EVICTION PETITION IN RESPECT OF PREMISES NO. 5562, basti HARPHOOL SINGH, DELHI, WAS FILED AGAINST THE petitioners WHICH WAS CONTESTED BY THEM. THE IDENTITY OF the SAID PREMISES WAS NEVER CHALLENGED. THE RESPONDENTS filed AND HAVE PROVED THE SITE PLAN OF PREMISES NO. 5562, 1st FLOOR, BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH, DELHI, BEFORE THE trial COURT WHICH IS EXHIBITED AS EX. AW-4/6. THE SITE plan WAS NEVER DISPUTED BY THE PETITIONERS DURING THE trial AND/or IN APPEALS RIGHT UPTO THE SUPREME COURT. THE PREMISES IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN EVICTED BY THE petitioners NOR POSSESSION HANDED OVER. THE STAND TAKEN by THE PETITIONERS PRESENTLY BEFORE THIS COURT IS frivolous TO SAY THE LEAST. IN THE ORDER UNDER challenge, THE TRIAL COURT HAS SET OUT REASONS FOR dismissing THE APPLICATION AND I SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE same. C. M. (M) 689/2002 AND C. M. APPL. 1383/2002 ARE dismissed. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.