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.

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 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 Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, which records the exclusive possession of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

5.2. He states that the physical possession of the tenanted premises has been handed over by son of Respondent Nos. 3 i.e., Amitabh Sood to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 after passing of the eviction order on 12.03.2022. He states that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are in exclusive physical possession of the tenanted premises.

5.3. He states that on the averments made in the revision petition, no challenge is maintainable against the impugned eviction order and the remedy of the Petitioner herein lies in initiating appropriate proceedings before the Rent Controller und