USHA KIRAN Vs. G S LAMBA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30.8.2014 and the Rent Control Tribunal/First Appellate Court dated 06.9.2014; by which objections filed by the petitioner, against execution of the judgment and decree of eviction dated 01.5.1999, passed against her husband, have been dismissed.

(2.) The present case is symptomatic of those litigants who abuse the process of law, not once but repeatedly. This, I am forced to observe because on the very same ground on which objections have been filed, the husband of the petitioner/ respondent in the eviction petition contested the proceedings, lost through till the appellate tiers, but once again the petitioner/wife wants to urge the same aspects as objections to the execution of the judgment and decree dated 01.5.1999.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 herein Sh.G.S.Lamba/decree holder filed an eviction petition against the respondent no.2 herein namely Sh.Sukhdev Raj and who is the husband of the petitioner. After contest, this eviction petition filed for non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was decreed by the Additional Rent Controller vide judgment dated 01.5.1999. Challenge was laid by the respondent no.2/husband of the petitioner before the Rent Control Tribunal and this challenge also failed as the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the first appeal vide its judgment dated 06.7.1999. Respondent no.2 further challenged the concurrent judgments of the Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal before this Court in CM(M) No.593/1999, but this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not pursued and hence the same was ultimately dismissed in default on 16.4.2007. Really, therefore since the year 1989 i.e from the last 26 years, respondent no.1 has been endeavouring to take possession of the suit property, but has failed on account of respondent no.2 and now the petitioner is causing delay in the proceedings