S.C. TYAGI Vs. D.C.M. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this application for restoration of possession of her residential quarter (the premises No. A-69-70, Line No. 9, D.C.M. Colony, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi). It is mentioned in the application that the applicant was employed with the Shriram Rayons, 5th Floor, 'Akash Deep', New Delhi since 1972. He was allotted a residential quarter by the company. He paid rent to the management for the said quarter. It is mentioned that the applicant continuously stayed in the quarter till 27th June, 1998 when he was dispossessed by the non-applicants. It is further mentioned that the suit for possession was filed by the D.C.M. Ltd. bearing Suit No. 1026/93 and the said suit was dismissed against the applicant. It is also mentioned that an appeal is pending before the learned Additional District Judge. It is also mentioned that the General Manager of the D.C.M. Ltd. filed a complaint bearing No. 60/1994 under Section 360 of the Companies Act and under Sections 408, 447, 448, of Indian Penal Code, for evicting the applicant from the said quarter which is still pending. It is also mentioned that an Industrial Dispute bearing No. I.D. 41/1988 is also sub-judiced before Shri R.K. Sharma, Presiding Officer, Tis Hazari and the non-applicants have illegally evicted the applicant from the said quarter. In these circumstances, the applicant has prayed that the quarter in question be restored to the applicant and the non-applicants be directed not to demolish the same.

(2.) REPLY to this application has been filed. In reply, it is mentioned that this application is misconceived and is a gross abuse of the process of this Court. It is also mentioned that the claim of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgments dated 1.10.1993, 23.10.1997, 27.3.1998 and 29.5.1998 of this Court. It is also mentioned that all the points which have been raised by the applicant in this application have already been considered and decided by this Court in judgments dated 1.10.1993, 23.10.1997, 27.3.1998 and 29.5.1998.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. In our considered opinion the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments of this Court. These judgments were upheld by the Supreme Court.