Full Judgment Text
$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 289/2015
th
% Decided on: 29 May, 2015
AVTAR KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shesh Datt Sharma, Advocate.
versus
B K PRADHAN ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.10723/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
RC.REV. 289/2015 and CM No. 10721/2015 (Stay)
th
1. Impugning the order dated 6 May, 2015 whereby the objections of
the Petitioner Avtar Kaur in Execution Petition No.56/2014 were dismissed,
the Petitioner prefers the present petition.
2. An eviction petition was filed by B.K. Pradhan against the Petitioner
Smt. Avtar Kaur under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
th
1958 (in short the ‘DRC Act’). The learned ARC vide its order dated 28
July, 2012 granted leave to defend to Smt. Avtar Kaur. However, B.K.
th
Pradhan challenged the order of the learned ARC dated 28 July, 2012
th
before this Court. Vide order dated 9 December, 2013 this Court in RC
th
Rev. No.420/2012 set aside the order of learned ARC dated 28 July, 2012
and directed Smt. Avtar Kaur to vacate the tenanted premises within 12
months of the passing of the order and not to sub-let or create any third party
RC.REV. 289/2015 Page 1 of 3
th
interest in the suit property. On 17 January, 2014 this Court also corrected
th
the earlier order dated 9 December, 2013 only in respect of the number of
the suit property mentioned therein. Aggrieved by the said order Smt. Avtar
Kaur preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was
th
dismissed vide order dated 14 August, 2014.
3. B.K. Pradhan, the Respondent herein filed an Execution Petition
wherein objections have been filed by Smt. Avtar Kaur. B.K. Pradhan has
already received the possession of the tenanted premises in execution
proceedings which were conducted by the Bailiff in the discharge of his
official duties. The pleas taken by Smt. Avtar Kaur in the objections are that
there was no land-lord tenant relationship and since the possession of the
premises was taken without notice the same was contrary to law and has
caused financial loss and mental agony to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs to Smt.
Avtar Kaur. Vide the impugned order the learned Trial Court dismissed the
objections with a cost of Rs.10,000/- out of which Rs.5,000/- has to be paid
to the Decree Holder and Rs.5,000/- was to be paid to the Delhi Legal
Services Authority, East.
4. Before this Court the only issued urged by learned counsel for Smt.
Avtar Kaur is that in fact there was no direction to vacate the premises and
this Court in RC Rev. No.420/2012 only set aside the order of the learned
ARC granting leave to defend and thus the execution petition was not
maintainable.
th
5. As noted above in Para-23 of the order dated 9 December, 2013 this
Court granted 12 months time to Smt. Avtar Kaur to vacate the suit property
and directed not to sub-let or create any third party interest in the same.
Thus besides setting aside the order of the learned ARC, clear direction to
RC.REV. 289/2015 Page 2 of 3
vacate the premises was given and the execution petition was maintainable
pursuant whereto action has been taken by the learned ARC.
6. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Petition and application are
dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MAY 29, 2015
‘vn’
RC.REV. 289/2015 Page 3 of 3