The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of the rent controller would bind the parties in subsequent proceedings, and a suit filed to obstruct execution proceedings and re-agitate settled issues is an abuse of the court process.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC for setting aside of the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the trial court whereby an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 7 for declaration and permanent injunction. They have sought a decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 7 are the occupants under respondent No.8/defendant No.2/DDA and are not the tenants of the petitioner qua the suit premises being one shop with two lofts forming part of the property No. T-420(J-227) forming part of municipal No.1/2-5090, Ward No. XV, Phatak Mishri Khan, Near Khanna Talkies, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. A decree of permanent injunction is also sought to restrain the petitioner/defendant No. 1 from taking possession of the suit premises on the basis of the eviction order dated 14.12.1995 passed by the court of Additional Rent Controller.

3. The petitioner stating herself to be landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) against respondents No. 1 to 7. The Additional Rent Controller vide its order dated 14.12.1995 negated the pleas of the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 to 7 and passed an eviction order against the said respondents. The ARC held that there existed a relationship of landlord tenant between the parties. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said order dated 14.12.1995. The same was also dismissed on 26.02.2004 by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal. Against the said order of the Rent Control Tribunal, the respondents preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this court being CM(M) 433/2006 titled as Surinder Kumar Dhingra vs. Kumari Jia Rani & Ors. The operation of the eviction order was stayed by this court. However, the said petition on 24.11.2006 was dismissed for non-prosecution and the interim order was vacated. In 2013, the petitioner commenced execution proceedings against respondents No. 1 to 7. It was at that stage that respondents No. 1 to 7 filed the present suit.

4. In the suit that is filed by respondents No. 1 to 7, it has been prayed that the lease in respect of the suit premises that was granted in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner was cancelled by the Delhi Improvement Trust on 07.03.1944. A decree dated 29.05.1946 for ejectment and damages was passed by the concerned court in a suit filed by the Delhi Improvement Trust against the said predecessor in interest of the petitioner. An appeal filed by the predecessor of the petitioner was also dismissed on 23.07.1946. It is further pleaded that Sh. Pritam Das Dhingra, the father of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had been in possession of the suit premises since 01.01.1961. A notice was issued to him i.e. Mr. Pritam Das Dhingra under Section 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. The Estate Officer directed payment of rent from 01.01.1961 to 31.03.1973 which was duly paid by Sh.Pritam Das Dhingra. It is pleaded that the petitioner was dispossessed from the suit premises by DDA/respondent No. 8 and by getting the attornment in its favour, respondents No.1 to 7 are now in rightful occupation under DDA. Reliance is placed on various demands raised by DDA based on which rent had been paid by Sh.Pritam Das Dhingra the predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 7. Hence, it is pleaded that despite the above position, the petitioner had based on a fictitious rent note filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1) (a) & (j) of the DRC Act. It is reiterated that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 7 having attorned to the Head Lessor and there is now a relation in existence between the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 7 and DDA. It is also pleaded that the orders of the Rent Control authorities would not be res judi