Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons v. Ajay Khurana

1. The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein referred to as “the Act”) titled as Ajay Khurana V Om Parkash Ashok Kumar & Sons against the petitioners in respect of the premises situated on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 53/8, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted premises”).

2. The petitioner after receipt of summons as per the third Schedule of the Act filed an application for grant of leave to defend along with an affidavit which was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2023, passed by the court of Ms. Priyanka Rajpoot, JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present petition. RC.REV. 284/2023 Page 2

3. Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Advocate for the respondent after referring the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the executing court of Ms. Neetu Sharma, CCJ-cum-ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in execution petition bearing no. 65EX245/24 titled as Ajay Khurana V Om Prakash Ashok Kumar and Sons stated that the present petition is not maintainable as the possession of the tenanted premises has already been taken in execution of warrant of possession.

4. Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Advocate for the respondent in support of his contentions cited N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana 2003 (1) SCC 453 Vinod Kumar Verma V Manmohan Verma & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5220-5221 of 2008, Judgment dated 22.07.2021 titled as Smt. Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in RC. REV. No.16/2021, judgment dated 19.3.2024 titled as Mange Ram V Rajesh Narain Goel in RC. REV. NO. 147/2021, Judgment of Madras High Court dated 21.7.2022 titled as L.S. Shanmuga Sundaram V P.Kunji Mohideen Kutty Haji in C.R.P. No.1571/2022 and Judgment dated 03.11.2023 titled as Ram Avtar V Anuradha Shukla in RC. REV. no. 1041/2021.

5. Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner after referring the judgements passed by the Apex Court in civil appeal no. 5026 of 2023 titled as Bhikachand S/o Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through LRs. V Shamabhai Dhanrej Gugale (Deceased) Through LRs., stated that if the impugned order is set aside, in that eventuality, the possession of the tenanted premises is liable to be restored back to the respondent. RC.REV. 284/2023 Page 3

6. The perusal of the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the executing court in execution petition bearing no. 65EX245/ reflects that the possession of the tenanted premises was restored to D. H. i.e. the respondent, in execution of warrant of possession on 10.04.2024 with the help of Bailiff and local police. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent the execution petition was ordered to be satisfied and the file was consigned to the record room.

7. The issue which needs Judicial consideration is whether the revision petition which is filed as per section 25B (8) of the Act to impugn the order of eviction as per section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act and if during the pendency of the revision petition, the possession is restored back to the landlord/owner, whether, in that eventuality the revision petition is maintainable or not.

8. In N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana 2003 (1) SCC 453 the respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction primarily on the ground of bona fide requirement which was opposed by the petitioners/tenant. The eviction order was passed as per section 14(1)(e) of the Act in favour of the respondent/landlord with the direction that the possession of the tenanted premises shall not be taken before the expiry of 06 months in terms of section 14(7) of the Act. The revision petition before the High Court of Delhi was also dismissed by holding that no prima facie case was made out by the tenant. The Supreme Court dealt with the arguments raised on behalf of the landlord that the petition has become infructuous because the possession has already been taken in pursuant to the execution of the RC.REV. 284/2023 Page 4 order passed by the rent controller. The Supreme Court has observed that in view of the admitted position that pursuant to the order passed by the rent controller, the possession has already been taken on execution of order permitting eviction did not examine the rival stand of the parties and accordingly dismissed the petition.

9. The Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Verma V Manmohan Verma & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5220-5221 of 2008 arising out of SLP (C) nos. 11268-11264/2008 vide order dated 19.08.2008 has also disposed of the appeals as infructuous as the possession of the tenanted premises was taken over by the landlord.

10. This Court in various decisions has followed the decision given by the Supreme Court in N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana. The Co-ordiate Bench of this Court in Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in RC. REV. no.16/2021 vide order dated 22.07.2021 after following the law laid down in N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana, dismissed the revision petition after observing that the landlord has received the possession of the tenanted premises through execution proceedings. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mange Ram V Rajesh Narain Goel, in RC. REV. no. 147/2021, decided on 19.03.2024 after following N.

Manmohan Verma & Anr., in Civil Appeal nos. 5220-5221/2008 passed by the Supreme Court and in Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in RC. REV no. 16/2021passed by this Court as mentioned hereinabove also dismissed the revision petition as became infructuous due to the reason that the possession RC.REV. 284/2023 Page 5 of the subject premises has been restored to the respondent/landlord. The same view was also taken by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar V Anuradha Shukla in RC. Rev. Bearing NO. 104/2021 vide order dated 03.11.2023, the revision petition was ordered to be dismissed as the possession of the tenanted premises has already been taken by the respondent/landlord in accordance with law.

11. Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner cited Bhikachand S/o Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through LRs. V Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceased) Through LRs., but the said judgment can be distinguished under the given facts and circumstances of the case as it was not passed under any provision of rent law, rather it was passed in respect of a money decree.

12. In the present case as reflected from the order dated 10.05.2024, the possession of the tenanted premises has already been restored back to the respondent/landlord in execution of warrant of possession in accordance with law. This Court is also of the view that the present petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending applications stands dismissed being infructuous.

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN (JUDGE) JULY 26, 2024 Sk/abk