Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 32955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
Pradeep Kumar Malik – Appellant
Versus
Chander Dhingra – Respondent
CM(M) 1914/2023 | CM APPLs. 59774-75/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Mr. Rohit Saraswat
For the Respondents: Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Mr. Ayush Dassi, Mr. M.D. Talha

A judgment-debtor/tenant cannot re-agitate ownership claims in execution proceedings once an eviction decree has attained finality after being challenged up to the Supreme Court, and no appeal lies under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against execution orders passed in summary proceedings under Section 25B.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B(8), Section 38- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 47 - Order XXI Rule 58 - Eviction decree - Executing Court - Powers under S. 47 CPC - Re-agitation of ownership claims by the tenant after eviction upheld by Supreme Court - Appealability of execution orders under DRC Act. (Paras 6, 7, 11)

(B) Eviction - Finality of decree - Tenant cannot re-agitate the ownership claim in execution proceedings after the eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act has attained finality up to the Supreme Court. (Paras 7.3, 10.2)

(C) Appeal - Maintainability - No appeal lies under Section 38 of the DRC Act against an order passed in execution proceedings of a decree passed under Section 25B of the DRC Act. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
An eviction order dated 01.09.2022 was passed against the Petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The Petitioner approached the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court, raising claims of ownership over the subject property based on unregistered documents. Both courts rejected these claims. Following the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the Respondent filed an execution petition. The Petitioner filed objections under Section 47 CPC, which the Executing Court rejected, noting that the plea of ownership stood closed. The subsequent appeal filed by the Petitioner before the RCT was dismissed as not maintainable.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Executing Court is not required to go behind a decree that has attained finality. The Petitioner’s attempt to re-litigate the ownership issue in execution proceedings is barred by principles of res-judicata and the summary nature of proceedings under Section 25B of the DRC Act.

Issues: Whether the Executing Court has the power to adjudicate ownership claims of a tenant in an execution petition once the eviction order has reached finality up to the Supreme Court, and whether an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act is maintainable against an order in execution proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An Executing Court's jurisdiction under Section 47 CPC is limited to execution of the decree and cannot be invoked to bypass a final eviction order; additionally, section 25B(8) of the DRC Act precludes an appeal under Section 38 against orders arising from summary eviction proceedings.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-; Petitioner directed to pay mesne profits at market rate.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and contentions surrounding the eviction execution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. finality of eviction decrees and scope of section 47 cpc. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. maintainability of appeals under section 38 and award of mesne profits. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 10.11.2023 (‘impugned order’) passed by Rent Control Tribunal (Central), Tis Hazari Courts (‘RCT’) whereby the RCT dismissed the appeal i.e. RCT 67/2023 filed by the Petitioner herein against the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Additional Rent controller (‘ARC’) in execution proceedings i.e. Ex. 607/2023.

1.1. The Petitioner is the tenant, who has suffered a decree of eviction on 01.09.2022 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the said order of eviction has been upheld by this Court (RCR 263/2022) and Supreme Court (SLP (C) No. 11773/2023).

1.2. The present proceedings emanate from the execution proceedings filed by the Respondent/landlord for execution of the decree of eviction dated 01.09.2022 passed in CIS No. E-289/2022.

1.3. The ARC vide order dated 17.10.2023 dismissed the objections filed by the Petitioner/tenant under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) to the execution petition on the ground that entertaining objections as raised by the Petitioner i.e., tenant involving the question of title is beyond the jurisdiction of the ARC in an execution petition as the same has already been decided and upheld by the Supreme Court.

1.4. The Respondent/landlord had filed eviction petition i.e., CIS No. E-289/2022, against the Petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, the with respect to a shop no. 413, Azad Market, Delhi-110006, admeasuring 4ft. x 7.5ft. (‘subject property’), on ground of bonafide requirement of the subject property for himself and his sons for carrying on business in the subject property.

1.5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will also be referred to as per their rank and status before the ARC.

Brief Facts

2. For the purpose of the disposal of the present petition the following facts are germane to the issue at hand.

2.1 The Petitioner/tenant states that he has purchased the subject property from Sh. Tota Ram Dhingra i.e., the father of the Respondent herein on 18.08.1994 vide unregistered customary documents such as General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell (ATS), Affidavit, Will, Receipt and possession letter for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Petitioner/tenant claims to have become owner of the subject property on the basis of the said customary documents.

2.2 Petitioner asserts that he was inducted as a statutory tenant in the subject property by the mother of the Respondent i.e., Smt. Durga Devi in 1981 and after her demise on 24.10.1990, the subject property devolved on the father of the Respondent Sh. Tota Ram Dhingra, who sold the same to the Petitioner by executing the customary transfer documents.

2.3 Respondent/landlord instituted the eviction proceedings i.e. CIS No. E-289/2022 before ARC against Petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act for bonafide requirement of himself and his sons. The summons in the petition were duly served on the Petitioner/tenant on 10.06.2022. It is contended by the Petitioner/tenant that since the paper-book was illegible, the Petitioner moved an application dated 11.07.2022 before the ARC under Section 151 CPC for suspension of period of limitation for filing the application for leave to defend along with the leave to defend application. It is a matter of record that the said application was dismissed by the ARC vide order dated 01.09.2022 and an order of eviction against the Petitioner/tenant was passed, as the Petitioner failed to fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 32955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JPradeep Kumar Malik – AppellantVersusChander Dhingra – RespondentCM(M) 1914/2023 | CM APPLs. 59774-75/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
Pradeep Kumar Malik – Appellant
Versus
Chander Dhingra – Respondent
CM(M) 1914/2023 | CM APPLs. 59774-75/2023