The legal principle established is that a claim of ownership and adverse possession that has been rejected in previous judgments cannot be re-agitated and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

ORDER

Subramonium Prasad, J. (Oral). - CM APPL. 19342/2022 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

RC.REV. 76/2022 & CM APPL. 19341/2022

1. Vide the instant revision petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 04.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Execution Petition No. 18/2019, whereby the learned ARC dismissed the objection petition filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') against the eviction order dated 04.05.2017, passed by the learned ARC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in ARC No.26161/2016 as well as an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the objection petition.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant revision petition are as under:

a) A suit for eviction was filed by the Respondent herein with regard to the property bearing No. WZ-113, Meenakshi Garden, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in question'), claiming themselves to be the owners of the said property which they purchased from the previous owners by way of sale deed dated 09.09.1987. The eviction petition was filed by the Respondents herein on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 herein wanted to start a boutique on the property in question with the help of her daughter (Respondent No.2 herein). It was stated in the eviction petition that the financial condition of the Respondent No. 1 herein is not strong and they required the property in question to run a business to make their ends meet.

b) An application for leave to defend was filed by the Petitioner herein. In the said application, it was stated by the Petitioner herein that he was not a tenant in the premises in question but the owner of the said property. It was further stated that the Respondents herein had no right, title or interest over the premises in question, and that the premises in question was in possession of the father of the Petitioner since 1958 and after the death of the Petitioner's father, the Petitioner herein remained in exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property in question. The application noted that the electricity connection of the property in question was installed in the name of the father of the Petitioner in the year 1968 and since then it has continued in his name. It was stated that the electricity meter was installed by the Department only after obtaining the proof of ownership. The leave to defend application further states that in the month of November 2001, inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Division of Delhi Vidyut Board and a notice was issued in the name of the father of the Petitioner herein and the matter was settled with the Delhi Vidyut Board and, therefore, it is clear that the Respondents herein have nothing to do with the premises in question. It is further stated that the municipal tax receipts of various amounts paid by the petitioner on a number of occasions demonstrates that the Petitioners are paying the municipal tax of the property in question and the Respondents herein have nothing to do with the premises.

c) The said leave to defend application, filed by the Petitioner herein, was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 04.05.2017. The Petitioner herein filed a revision petition before this Court, being RC. REV. 285/2017, against the order of the learned ARC rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to defend. The said revision petition was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2019. The Petitioner herein approached the Apex Court by filing an S.L.P, being S.L.P (C) No. 26483/2019, against the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by this Court. The said S.L.P. was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.11.2019 with liberty to pursue all such remedies as are available in law to the Petitioner.

d) During execution, t