$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 + RC.REV. 257/2024 KUMARI GAYATRI TRIPATHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Mr. Sachin Bansal, Advs.

versus TRUST MANDIR SHRI RAMCHANDERJI (REGD.).....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

CM Appl.12916/2025[For disposal of CM Appl.54714/2024]

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant seeking disposal of CM Appl. 54714/2024.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that in view of the fact that no interim protection has been granted to the Petitioner/tenant, pursuant to the execution proceedings initiated by the Respondent/landlord, a Bailiff has been appointed by the learned Executing Court.

2.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant further submits that the present Application was served on the learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord on 28.02.2025 by email, despite which there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent/landlord.

3. In view of what is stated in the Application, the same is allowed.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 257/2024 Page 1 of 13

4. CM Appl.54714/2024 is taken up for hearing and disposal today.

5. The Application stands disposed of.

CM Appl.54714/2024[Stay]

6. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant seeking stay on the operation of the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant makes two submissions. In the first instance, he submits that the Respondent/landlord is not the owner of the premises i.e., ground floor of property no. 4312, Gali Bhairo Wali, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi – 110006 more fully shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”] and that the Petitioner/tenant is the owner. Secondly, he submits that the Petition is barred by the provisions of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the Impugned Order on 18.09.2024. Thereafter, this Court had also examined the Impugned Order on 08.10.2024 and on 12.11.2024, when a detailed order was passed. Thereafter, various requests for adjournment were made by the parties, as is clear from the record.

9. Neither the Coordinate Bench nor this Court deemed it apposite to pass an order for interim protection in favour of the Petitioner/tenant. The reason for that is also clear from the order dated 12.11.2024. The relevant extract is set out below:

“1. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord submits that the only issue that has been raised by the Petitioner/tenant in the Petition is that the Petitioner/tenant claims to be the owner of the subject premises. He further Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 257/2024 Page 2 of 13 submits that so far as concerns the issue of bona fide requirement and the alternate suitable accommodation, the same is not disputed by the Petitioner/tenant.

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord further submits that the issue of ownership has been dealt with by the Impugned Order. He submits that the issue of ownership has already been the subject matter of litigation between the parties in various proceedings filed before the learned Trial Court. He seeks to rely upon a judgment dated 18.10.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 94011/16 captioned Ms. Gayatri Tripathi & Anr. v. Sh. S.K. Verma & Anr., wherein it dismissed the suit by plaintiff/petitioner for declaration of ownership of Property bearing No.4312, Gali Bhairon Wali, Nai Sadak, 110006, which is the subject matter of the present Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord further submits that it is settled law that the issue of title cannot be decided in these proceedings and in any event it already stands settled by earlier judicial pronouncements.

4. Learned Counsel for th