The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to dismiss objections and uphold warrants of possession in cases of mala fide conduct and abuse of the court process by the Judgment Debtor.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned order dated 1st June, 2018 by which the objections filed by the Petitioner – Mr. Prem Singh have been dismissed by the Executing Court. The petition also challenges the order dated 17th July, 2018 by which the Petitioner’s objections have been disposed of as withdrawn.

2. A suit for possession and recovery was filed in 1977 by one Mr. Girdhari Lal Dhara against four Defendants - Mr. Amin Chand, Mr. Jagan Singh, Mr. Prem Singh and Mr. Dhiraj Singh. The land (“suit property”) is described in para no.1 of the plaint as under:

“1. The plaintiff is the owner of the land measuring 4000 sq. yds. comprised in Khasra No. 742, situated in the revenue estate of Village Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi. The plaintiff constructed thereon a Cinema measuring 450 sq. yds, one room 24' x 24' on the corner side (north west), and one room measuring about 24' x 24' on the side of the north west corner and three room back side. The constructed premises is shown in attached site plan and the same is annexed as Annexure-1.”

3. The case of the Plaintiff was that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached the Plaintiff for grant of a license for running a cinema in the suit property, which was granted on 15th November, 1971 for a monthly license fee of Rs.2,000/- per month. Since the requisite permissions could not be obtained, the property could not be put to use. In February, 1972, possession was given back to the Plaintiff, however, on 1st April, 1972 an attempt was made to take forcible possession. An injunction suit was filed by the Plaintiff, which was settled by a compromise arrived at on 7th June, 1972. One of the terms of the compromise was as follows:

“(d) That the defendants shall use the premises for cinema purposes only and not for any other purpose.”

On the basis of the compromise, which was entered into, the Defendants used the suit property. It was the Plaintiff’s case that Defendant Nos. 1 & 2, without permission from the Plaintiff, thereafter permitted Defendant Nos.3 & 4 to use the said site. As per the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos.1 & 2 were allowed the use the land admeasuring 2,700 sq. yds in terms of the compromise, but the said Defendants used even the adjoining land unauthorizedly, and also carried out construction in the property. The Plaintiff called upon the Defendants to vacate and since the Defendants did not vacate the property, a suit for possession was filed. The prayer in the suit was as under:

“It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession of the suit premises i.e. the land measuring 4000 sq. yads. in khasra no. 742 situated within the revenue estate of Village Mandawali, Fazalpur, Shahdara, Delhi alongwith the decree for Rs. 90,000/- as arrears of mesne profit/damages for use against the defendants. Without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to recover damages, it is submitted that if the defendants assert themselves as tenants and the court holds them as tenants, the decree for the said amount be passed as arrears of rent. Cost of the suit be also awarded. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also awarded to the plaintiff.”

4. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed their written statement, wherein they admitted that the Plaintiff was the landlord and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the tenants. It is the case of Defendants 3 & 4 that since the construction of the cinema hall could not be carried out by the Plaintiffs, they had joined Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for investment in the construction and running of the cinema hall. The Defendant Nos.3 and 4 claimed that they completed construction in the cinema hall in October, 1973 and the same was opened on 2nd December, 1973. The Defendant Nos.3 and 4 were inducted in the property with the consent of the Plaintiff. The plaint did not annexe the site plan, though there is a mention of the site plan in paragraph no. 1 of the plaint. Defendant Nos.3 and 4