The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person who approaches the court with unclean hands cannot be granted relief, and dishonest litigants cannot abuse the process of the court.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 18th November, 2021 passed by the Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter `Executing Court') in Execution No. 03/2021, whereby the Executing Court has issued warrants of execution in respect of the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010 passed in Eviction No.28/2010.

2. Notice was issued in this petition on 08th December, 2021 and the counsel for the respondent has entered appearance.

3. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that:

3.1. Respondent (hereinafter `landlord') filed an eviction petition bearing Eviction No.28/2010 before the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter `ARC') under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) seeking eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter `tenant') from the tenanted premises, being Shop No.3674, Gali Sehtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter `tenanted premises').

3.2. Vide judgment dated 12th July, 2010, the ARC allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord as the tenant failed to file the leave to defend. However, in terms of settlement arrived at between the tenant and landlord, ten years' time was granted to the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. Upon expiry of ten years, the landlord filed the execution petition from which the present petition arises.

3.3. Vide impugned order dated 18th November, 2021 passed by the Executing Court, request of the tenant to file reply to the execution petition was rejected and warrants of execution of the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010 were issued after noting that no appeal/revision has been preferred by the tenant against the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010.

4. Counsel for the tenant has made the following submissions:

(i) In view of Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), since the execution petition was filed more than two years after the date of order/decree passed by the ARC and also the execution is against the legal representatives of the original respondent, Sh. Ram Nath Ahuja, who had expired after passing of the order/decree by the ARC, notice was required to be issued to the person against whom execution has been filed, requiring him to show cause. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyanarain Bajoria Vs. Ramnarain Tibrewal, (1993) 4 SCC 414.

(ii) The order/decree passed by the ARC itself was a nullity as the provisions of the DRC Act are not applicable to the locality where the tenanted premises is located i.e. Ajmeri Gate. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Prakash, (1977) 2 SCC 662 to contend that where there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, it goes to the root of competence of the court to try the case. As a result, the decree which is passed is a nullity and it can be so declared by the Executing Court. To the same effect, is the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Apple Finance Ltd. Vs. Mantri Housing and Construction Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 97, relied upon by the counsel for the tenant.

5. Counsel for the landlord has made the following submissions:

(i) The order/decree dated 12th July, 2010 passed by the ARC was in the nature of a compromise decree as it was passed with the consent of both the sides.

(ii) The tenant has not approached this Court with clean hands as the earlier orders passed in the execution petition before the impugned order dated 18th November, 2021 was passed, have not been disclosed.

(iii) Notice to the tenant was issued by the Executing Court on 26th March, 2021 and it has been noted in the order dated 09th November, 2021 that notices have been served on the tenant. In fact, it is further noted in the order dated 09th November, 2021 that despite pass over, none appeared on behalf of the tenant.

(iv