LAXMI DEVI Vs. INDER DEV SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 15th March, 2021 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, District-West, Principal District and 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 Sec. 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 No.9, Anand Parbat, Delhi. The learned ARC passed the eviction order dtd. 24t h March, 2012 and vide subsequent order dtd. 7t h April, 2012, the benefit under Sec. 14(2) of the DRC Act was denied as the respondent No.2 had not complied with the order dtd. 14th July, 2005 passed under Sec. 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 dtd. 9th 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 Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) dtd. 15th February, 2013 followed by additional objections under Sec. 47 of the CPC read with Sec. 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 dtd. 23rd May, 2003, Receipt of Payment, Possession Letter, registered General Power of Attorney as well as Will, all dtd. 23rd 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.