$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 07.02.2025 + RC.REV. 50/2021 & CM Appl.7653/2021 NEW AIRWAYS TRAVELS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rizwan, Ms. Sachi Chopra and Ms. Nistha Sinha, Advs.

versus S.K. GUPTA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. C.P. Vig, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

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

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner impugning the order dated 21.12.2015 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ARC/ACJ/CCJ, New Delhi in “objections” filed by the Petitioner.

2. At the outset learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has raised two preliminary objections. He submits that the present Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 25(B) (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] since the objections which were sought to be decided by the learned Rent Controller had not been filed under the provisions of either Section 14(1)(e), 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that in any event, the order that the Petitioner seeks to challenge has been passed on 21.12.2015 while the Revision Petition has been filed on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 50/2021 Page 1 of 8

15.02.2021. Thus, it is contended that the Petition is barred by limitation.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, makes two submissions. He submits that the Petitioner has approached this Court after being granted liberty by the learned Trial Court. Reliance is placed on paragraph 15 of the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court in this regard. In addition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will be left remediless against the Impugned Order, if the Petition is dismissed.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that the Respondent No.1 is the landlord of the premises i.e., Municipal No. 84, Tolstoy Lane, New Delhi admeasuring 700 sq. ft [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. It is contended that in the year 2010, Respondent No.1 filed an Eviction Petition for ejectment of Respondent No.2/M/s Him Traders Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “Tenant”] bearing Eviction Petition No. 07/2010 captioned Sh. S.K. Gupta v. M/s Him Traders Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that the order evicting the tenant has attained finality.

5. The record reflects that an application for leave to defend/contest was filed by Tenant before the learned Rent Controller which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.03.2011. This order was challenged by the Tenant before this Court by way of RC. REV. 546/2011 captioned M/s Him Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. S.K. Gupta.

6. By an order dated 08.08.2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the challenge to the dismissal of the leave to defend Application was also dismissed. Subsequently, the Tenant approached the Supreme Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 50/2021 Page 2 of 8 Court against the order dated 08.08.2014 which challenge could also not be sustained and was dismissed by an order dated 12.02.2016 in SLP (C) No. 1122/2016 captioned Him Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.K. Gupta. Thus, the order evicting the Tenant from the subject premises has attained finality.

7. Subsequently, the Respondent No.1 filed proceedings for the execution of the Eviction Order dated 31.03.2011 wherein the Petitioner filed ‘Objections’ under the provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

8. As can be seen above narration, the Petitioner before this Court is neither the tenants nor the landlord. The Petitioner had filed “objections” before the learned Trial Court in Ex. No. 10/11 captioned S K Gupta vs. Him Traders Pvt. Ltd. These objections were dismissed by the Impugned Order. Against the dismissal of these objections, the Petitioner first filed an Appeal under Section 38 of the Act. The said Appeal was also dismissed b