High Court of DelhiRC.REV./243/2023

Raj Kumar v. Shanti Devi & ORS.

2024-08-12Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain4 pages

$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 243/2023 RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate versus SHANTI DEVI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Shalabh Gupta and Ms. Vandita Gupta, Advocates for R-1 & 2

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

O R D E R

% 12.08.2024 1.

The present revision petition is filed under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to impugn the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the court of Ms. Deepti Devesh, SCJ-cum-RC, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in RC ARC 47/2022 whereby the trial court passed an eviction order qua the tenanted premises i.e., one shop forming part of property bearing no. 50, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, New Delhi as the application for leave to defend was not filed within the stipulated time.

The respondents no. 1 and 2/landlords filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the petitioner/tenant on the ground of bona fide need. The petitioner/tenant, after service of summons as per the Third Schedule on 09.02.2023, did not file application for leave to defend within the stipulated time i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of summons, as a consequence of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

which, an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondents no. 1 and 2/landlords.

The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present petition and stated that the arguments on merit be heard.

The counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 stated that the possession of the tenanted premises has already been taken over by the respondents no.1 and 2/landlords in execution of warrant of possession in accordance with law on 03.04.2024. Accordingly, the present petition has become infructuous.

This Court in the judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed in RC.REV. 284/2023 titled as Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons V Shri Ajay Khurana held as under:-

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 order passed by the rent controller. The Supreme Court has observed that in view of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana and Vinod Kumar Verma V 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 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.

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

stands dismissed being infructuous.

Accordingly, in view of the above observations made in the judgment dated 30.09.2014 passed in RC.REV. 139/2016 and as the possession of the tenanted premises is already restored to the respondents no.1 and 2/landlords in execution of warrant of possession in accordance with law, as such, the present revision petition has become infructuous, hence dismissed along with pending application.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J AUGUST 12, 2024 sk/am The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.