The main legal point established is that orders passed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, attain finality and cannot be challenged in a separate suit.

The present suit has been filed the plaintiff seeking declaration, declaring the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 2.7.2005 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from acting upon the eviction order dated 2.7.2005.

2. By order dated 29.10.2007 defendant Nos. 2, 5, 7, & 8 were proceeded ex parte.

3. Even defendant Nos. 4 and 6 have not filed their written statement or any documents and their right to do so has also been closed vide order dated 13.7.2010.

4. As agreed by both parties, issue No. 1 was to be treated as preliminary issue and they also agreed that no evidence is required for hearing of the said issue. Issue No. 1 reads as under:

“1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 43 of DRC Act, 1958 ? -OPD”

5. The brief facts of the case as per the plaint are that the vide agreement dated 31.12.1980 Shri. T.C. Jain the father of the plaintiff herein acquired tenancy rights in the property bearing No. M-133, Second Floor and M-91, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the “said property”) on the basis of Sub-lease dated 25.10.1980 by defendant No. 2 who himself was a tenant in the said property by the predecessor in interest of defendant No. l vide Lease Deed dated 19.5.1977. While assigning business and tenancy rights in respect of the said property in favour of Shri. T.C. Jain, defendant No. 2 had also issued receipts and executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour but, later on vide letter dated 2.9.1986, he revoked the General Power of Attorney.

6. Thereafter, Shri. T.C. Jain, filed a suit of specific performance and permanent injunction before this Court being suit No. 1956/86, seeking execution and registration of the Deed of assignment in his favour. In the said suit, the defendant No. 1 categorically submitted that he has transferred his rights in the said property in favour of Shri. T.C. Jain as a tenant, vide order dated 13.1.1988, the Court passed directions against the sub-tenants (the other defendants) to directly pay all arrears as well as future rent of the said suit property to Shri. T.C. Jain. In the said order dated 13.1.1988, the consent of defendant No. 1 was also recorded that he had no objection if the rent is paid to Shri. T.C. Jain. The said suit was finally dismissed in default vide order dated 29.3.1994.

7. The plaintiff moved an application for restoration of the said suit which was also dismissed in default. Thereafter, litigation kept pending in respect of the said property between the parties. On 7.3.1997, Shri. T.C. Jain passed away while the litigation was pending thus, plaintiff took steps to be substituted as def endantbeing the L.R. of Shri. T.C. Jain.

8. Thereafter, plaintiff field a civil suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit being CS (OS) No. 283/2004 against the defendants, as defendant No. 1 had illegally taken over the possession of room Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 along with the open terrace of the property bearing No. M-133, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, from the other defendants, vide order dated 23.3.2004 this Court passed a restraint order. However, the plaintiff was apprehending that defendants would collusively try to exchange different portions of the property with each other to deprive the plaintiff, of his rights. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 before the Additional Rent Controller, in the eviction petition stating that any compromise between the defendants would be illegal. But, before the Additional Rent Controller could pass any order, the defendants made statements before him and suffered an eviction decree against them and in favour of the defendant No. 1.

9. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the statements made by the defendants and the consequent decree are illegal and in contravention to the various orders passed by different Courts in different suits. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

10. The case of defe