Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 29^th September, 2021

+

CM (M) 320/2021 & CM APPL. 14054/2021 (of petitioner u/S

151 CPC for stay)

LAXMI DEVI

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Varun Dhingra and Mr.

Hemant Choudhary, Advocates.

Versus

INDER DEV SHARMA & ANR

.....Respondents

Through:

Mr.

Rajendra

Kumar

Jain,

Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

The petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India against the order dated 15^th March, 2021 passed by the learned Rent

Control Tribunal, District-West, Principal District & Sessions Judge

(RCT), whereby the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of

her objections to the execution of the order of eviction against the

respondent No.2, were dismissed.

2.

The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present petition are

that the respondent No.1 had filed a suit for eviction against the

respondent No.2, numbered as 53/2008, under Section 14(1)(a) of the

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC) claiming to be the landlord of

property measuring 55 sq. yards being part of property No.10/13, Gali

2021:DHC:3097

Page 2 of 7

No.9, Anand Parbat, Delhi. The learned ARC passed the eviction order

dated 24^th March, 2012 and vide subsequent order dated 7^th April, 2012,

the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act was denied as the

respondent No.2 had not complied with the order dated 14^th July, 2005

passed under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. The respondent No.2

preferred an appeal being RCT No.28/2012 which was also dismissed by

the learned ARCT (West) vide order dated 9^th October, 2012.

3.

Thereafter, an Execution Petition No.61934/2016 was filed. It was

during the pendency of the Execution Petition that the present petitioner

preferred objections initially under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) dated 15^th February, 2013 followed by additional

objections under Section 47 of the CPC read with Section 25 of the DRC

Act claiming that she was the lawful, rightful and absolute owner in

possession of the suit property and was having an independent right to the

same having purchased it from Shri Mohan Lal Goyal s/o Shri Jyoti Ram

vide Agreement to Sell dated 23^rd May, 2003, Receipt of Payment,

Possession Letter, registered General Power of Attorney as well as Will,

all dated 23^rd May, 2003. She has further claimed that she has been in

possession of the suit property since then and had also obtained a factory

licence from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). It was further

alleged that the respondent No.1 has never been the owner/landlord of the

premises in question and he himself was a tenant under Shri Mohan Lal

Goyal. In fact, the premises had been sub-let by respondent No.1 to

respondent No.2, who had subsequently surrendered the possession in

favour of Shri Mohan Lal Goyal, from whom the petitioner had received

the possession.

2021:DHC:3097

Page 3 of 7

4.

The learned ARC vide order dated 30^th September, 2019 concluded

that the petitioner had miserably failed to prove her independent right to

the suit property and dismissed the objections. In appeal being RCT

No.78/2019, the learned RCT vide order dated 15^th March, 2021, upheld

the said findings, again looking into the evidence referred to by the

learned ARC and found that the conclusions of the ARC were justified.

5.

Mr. Varun Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that both the courts had erred in coming to these conclusions as it was

overlooked that there was some previous litigation between Shri Mohan

Lal Goyal and the respondent No.1 through the objector, in which certain

admissions had been made to the effect that the respondent No.1 was

infact a tenant of the said Shri Mohan Lal Goyal. It is Shri Mohan Lal

Goyal from whom the petitioner was claiming ownership