Full Text
Present: Mr.T.S.Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No.12739/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.806/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.806/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
30.4.2011 vide which the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff qua the suit property i.e. the property bearing No.RZK-19/272, Khasra No.272, Village Nasirpur, Block-K, now known as Shanker
Park, Gandhi Market, West Sagarpur, New Delhi had been decreed. This was on an application preferred by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the code of Civil Procedure. It is not in dispute that the petitioner before this Court was the tenant of the non-applicant; there was no dispute about the landlord-tenant relationship; legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant dated 12.12.2007 had been replied to by the petitionervide his rely dated 21.12.2007. The rate of rent of the suit premises was
Rs.1100/-. A preliminary issue was framed on the objection raised in the written statement that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred; that preliminary issue had been decided vide order dated
30.7.2011;
JUDGMENT
2011:DHC:7816
659 SC Mitter Sen Vs. Shakuntala Devi had been relied upon to hold that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred; that order has since attained a finality. This is not disputed even before this Court. This Court is at a loss to understand how and in what circumstances this petition has been filed. On a specific query made to learned counsel for the petitioner; he has no answer. Adjournment has been sought to place on record a notification substantiating his submission that the disputed premises are covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act. This argument has no force, in fact, this has been noted in the impugned order, wherein it has been endorsed that a preliminary issue qua the jurisdiction of the suit property had been framed which had been decided vide order dated 30.7.2011; that order has since attained a finality. It does not now lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that there is a notification to the contrary. This petition is an abuse of the process of the court and waste of time. It is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. A copy of this order be compliance. sent to tri o ensure INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY 18, 2011 2011:DHC:7816