$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 16^th May, 2023

Date of Decision: 10^th August, 2023

+

RC.REV. 71/2022 & CM APPL. 21691/2023

ARUN SOOD

...... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Atul Gupta, Advocate

versus

HARDIT KAUR & ORS.

...... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Akshay Makhija, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Krish Kalra, Advocate for

R- 1, 2, 5 & 6

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1.

This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant assailing

the order dated 23.10.2021 (‘impugned order’) passed by Additional Rent

Controller, Tis Hazari Court, Central District, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) whereby

the application(s) seeking leave to defend were dismissed and an eviction

order was passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

(‘DRC Act’) in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, landlords with respect

to the premises i.e., ground floor built up property comprising of rooms,

halls, verandah, tin sheds, open spaces, in a plot admeasuring 584 Sq. Yds.

Digitally Signed

By:RASHMI DABAS

Signing Date:10.08.2023

20:53:26

Signature Not Verified

bearing Municipal No. 777 in Ward No. 1, at Nicholson Road, Kashmiri

Gate, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition

(‘tenanted premises’or ‘subject property’).

2.

As per the averments made in the eviction petition, the tenanted

premises were let out to a partnership firm M/s Scientific Equipments Works

i.e., Respondent No. 4, which had two partners namely Sh. Pramanand Sood

i.e., Respondent No. 3 and Sh. C.P. Sood, the deceased father of the

Petitioner herein. The said Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 have

been arrayed as proforma Respondents, as stated in the revision petition.

2.1.The said Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not filed a separate revision

petition assailing the eviction order dated 23.10.2021.

3.

The Trial Court vide eviction order dated 23.10.2021 had granted a

statutory period of six (6) months under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act to the

tenants, which expired on 23.04.2022.

4.

This revision petition was filed on 12.04.2022 by the Petitioner herein

stating that he has learnt that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, landlords, have

sold the tenanted premises on 31.03.2022 in favour of third parties i.e., Mrs.

Shalini Arora and Mrs. Suman Arora, who have since been impleaded as

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively, in the present petition.

4.1.It is stated in this Petition that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have sought

to forcibly dispossess the Petitioner from the tenanted premises on

04.04.2022 by breaking open the locks of the tenanted premises and in this

regard Petitioner has also placed reliance on a police complaint dated

04.04.2022 filed with PS Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.

4.2.It is categorically asserted in the list of dates against the entry

05.04.2022 (sic) that the Petitioner is still (as on date of the filing of this

Digitally Signed

By:RASHMI DABAS

Signing Date:10.08.2023

20:53:26

Signature Not Verified

revision petition) in possession of the tenanted premises and the same is

under his locks & keys. This assertion of actual physical possession was

reiterated before this Court during proceedings dated 26.04.2022.

Arguments of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6; Landlords, Owners

5.

Mr. Akshay Makhija, Sr. Advocate addressed opening arguments on

behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 and Mr. Krish Kalra, Advocate

addressed arguments in rejoinder on behalf of the said Respondents to the

following effect: -

5.1.He states that the Petitioner i.e., Mr. Arun Sood has never been in

physical possession of the tenanted premises. He states that the physical

possession of the tenanted premises was held by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to

the exclusion of Petitioner. He relies upon the pleadings, orders and

judgement of the Civil Judge in the suit for permanent injunction filed by

Res