SATNAM ANAND Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Execution case No. 54/2010 in E-477/2009 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the objections filed by the Appellant under Order XLVII read with Order XXI Rule 29 Code of Code of Civil Procedure and the application under Section 151 Code of Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside of the eviction order dated 03.02.2010 passed against the Appellant. The Appellant, who is admittedly a tenant in the suit property filed objections to the execution after having been unsuccessful in obtaining leave to defend and failing in his revision petition against order of eviction passed against him in the aforesaid order.

(2.) The Respondent, Gurbachan Singh succeeded to the estate of Late Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and had been claiming that the shop in question devolved upon him and his two sons and he being one of the co-owners filed eviction petition as stated above against the Appellant under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act') in which the court did not allow the Appellants to contest the petition and dismissed their application dated 23.09.2009 vide its order dated 03.02.2010 and passed an eviction order against the Appellants.

(3.) After losing in the eviction petition, the Appellant filed objections in the execution petition which was filed for his eviction based upon the eviction order passed against him challenging the grant of letters of administration dated 23.08.1993 which is the spring board of the claim of ownership by the Respondent alleging that letters of administration were obtained by them by fraud perpetrated by Sh. Avtar Singh, since deceased, and in respect thereof, the Appellants also filed petition dated 05.07.2010 for revocation of the letter of Administration dated 23.08.93 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act in the Ld. Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Shastri, ADJ,Delhi. It was further stated that the eviction order has been obtained by playing a calculated fraud on the Court in as much as Respondent was not one of the co-owners of the tenanted shop in dispute and he could not have filed petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.