RAMESH KUMAR BANGA Vs. KAILASH MAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the instant revision petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dtd. 4/4/2022, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Execution Petition No. 18/2019, whereby the learned ARC dismissed the objection petition filed by the Petitioner herein under Sec. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') against the eviction order dtd. 4/5/2017, passed by the learned ARC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in ARC No.26161/2016 as well as an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the objection petition.

(2.) Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant revision petition are as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned ARC erred in dismissing the application simply on the ground that the issue had been settled in the previous proceedings. He submits that the question as to whether the Respondent is the owner of the property in question or not has to be decided in the objection petition filed by the Petitioner. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Farjam v. Sarfaraz Ahmed, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3435. He further submits that the Petitioner wanted to seek a declaration that the sale deed dtd. 9/9/1987 does not transfer any right, title or interest in favour of the Respondents herein as the Petitioner's father had become the owner of the property in question and after the death of the father of the Petitioner in the year 1999, it was the Petitioner who became the exclusive owner of the property in question. He submits that he cannot file a suit for the said purpose in light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Farjam (supra). He states that the learned ARC erred in dismissing the petition without a trial as stipulated under Order XXI of the C.P.C.