Sh. Goverdhan Lal & Anr vs Sh. Satbeer Kumar & Ors on 16 June, 2025

[Cites 25, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sh. Goverdhan Lal & Anr vs Sh. Satbeer Kumar & Ors on 16 June, 2025

                          $~SB-19
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         RC.REV. 315/2024
                                    SH. GOVERDHAN LAL & ANR.                 .....Petitioners
                                                Through: Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Yashika
                                                          Sharma, Advocates.

                                                                  versus

                                    SH. SATBEER KUMAR & ORS.                    .....Respondents
                                                  Through: Mr. Alankar Tewari, Advocate.

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
                                                                  ORDER

                          %                                       16.06.2025

                          CM APPL. 36694/2025

1. This is an Application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the order dated 02.08.2024.

2. The same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 36693/2025

4. The Applicants seek, inter alia, the following prayer:

―a. Allow the application and direct that the possession of the tenanted premises bearing Shop No. 352, Katra Munshi Gauri Shankar also known as Naya Katra, Near Moti Cinema, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 be forthwith restored to the present Petitioner; and b. Stay further proceedings in Execution Petition No. 445/2025 pending in the Court of the Ld. CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi.‖ RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 1 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 BRIEF FACTS

5. It is submitted by the Applicants that the present Application arises out of the execution of Warrants of Possession on 05.06.2025, whereby the Applicants have been dispossessed from the tenanted premises situated at Shop No. 352, Katra Munshi Gauri Shankar (also known as Naya Katra), near Moti Cinema, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006 ("tenanted premises").

6. It is submitted by the Applicants that the Warrants of Possession were executed without any prior notice served to the Applicants of the Execution Petition No. 445/2025 ("Execution Petition") during the pendency of Revision Petition being RC. REV. No. 315/2024 ("Revision Petition") before this Court.

7. The Applicants were inducted as tenants of the tenanted premises on 01.04.1972 by Mr. Sukhdev Singh and the Applicants are engaged in running a garment shop under the name and style of "Hari Ram Bansi Dass"

from the tenanted premises. In the year 1976, Mr. Sukhdev Singh passed away and his descendents filed an Eviction Petition No. 39/2023 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act"), on the ground of bona fide requirement ("Eviction Petition").

8. Vide order dated 02.08.2024 ("Eviction Order"), learned CCJ-cum- ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ("Rent Controller") rejected leave to defend of the Applicants and allowed the Eviction Petition of the Respondents and directed that the Applicants shall handover the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the Respondents. In view of the provisions of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the Eviction Order provided that the same shall not be executed before the expiration of a period of 6 RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 2 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 (six) months from the date of the Eviction Order.

9. Being aggrieved by the Eviction Order, the Petitioners filed the Revision Petition before this Court. Vide order dated 09.01.2025, this Court issued notice to the Respondents on the limited aspect of bona fide requirements of the tenanted premises by the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Respondents accepted the notice and agreed to file a short note of contentions alongwith compilation of judgments 1 (one) week before the next date of hearing. The matter was listed on 19.02.2025.

10. On 19.02.2025, both the Parties requested additional time to comply with the directions to file a short note of contentions and compilation of judgments and at the request of Parties, the Revision Petition was listed on 28.07.2025 by this Court. It was further observed that in the event any coercive steps are taken by the Respondents, the Applicants were at liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with law.

11. After the Applicants were dispossessed on 05.06.2025, the present Application has been filed seeking the prayers as mentioned above. This Vacation Bench issued notice to the Respondents vide order dated 11.06.2025, returnable on 13.06.2025.

12. On 13.06.2025, the Respondents appeared through their Counsel and made submissions. Both Parties were directed to file their Written Submissions, and this Application was listed on 16.06.2025. The Parties have filed their respective Written Submissions alongwith the cases relied upon by them and the same are taken on record.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPLICANTS:

13. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that there has been a fraud played by the Respondents on the learned Rent Controller in RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 3 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

14. It is submitted that on 19.02.2025, both the Parties requested for additional time to comply with the order dated 09.01.2025 with regard to filing of Written Submissions and at joint request of both the Parties, the Revision Petition was listed on 28.07.2025. However, it was clarified that in the event, any coercive steps are taken by the Respondents; the Applicants were at liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with law.

15. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that soon after passing of the order dated 19.02.2025, on 25.02.2025, the Respondents filed Execution Petition before the learned Rent Controller.

16. The learned Counsel for the Applicants have relied upon the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, which states as under:

―Ex. 445/2025

Satbeer Kumar & Ors.Vs. Goverdhan Lal & Anr.

CNR No. DLCT03-001132-2025 27.02.2025 Fresh execution petition is received. Let it be checked and registered.

Present: Sh. Alankar Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the DH.

Physical file received.

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for DH that next date of hearing before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the revision petition is fixed for 28.07.2025.

Nazir to report on 29.07.2025.

(Rahul Verma) CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) THC/Delhi/27.02.2025‖ RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 4 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50

17. The learned Counsel for the Applicants have submitted that the above order shows that the learned Rent Controller was apprised about the pendency of the Revision Petition and the order dated 19.02.2025, which contained the next date of hearing as 28.07.2025. In view of the same, without issuing notice to the Applicants, the learned Rent Controller adjourned the Execution Petition on 29.07.2025.

18. The learned Counsel for the Applicants have relied upon an order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller in the Execution Petition pursuant to an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") filed to place on record certified copy of the site plan. The said application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller as no certified copy of the site plan was filed alongwith the said application. However, since the learned Counsel for the Respondents sought time to file the certified copy of the site plan alongwith an application, the earlier date of 29.07.2025 was cancelled and the matter was listed on 25.04.2025 for the said purpose. The said order is extracted below:

―Ex. 445/2025

Satbeer Kumar & Ors. Vs. Goverdhan Lal & Anr.

06.03.2025 File is taken up on an application u/s 151 CPC for early hearing.

Present: Ld. Counsel for the DH through VC.

One application u/s 151 CPC is filed for preponement of the present case.

Heard.

In view of the submissions, application stands allowed and matter is taken up today.

One application u/s 151 CPC filed for placing on record certified copy of the site plan. However, no such certified copy of site plan is filed along-with the application.

RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 5 of 30

This is a digitally signed order.

Ld. Counsel for the DH seeks some time to file certified copy of site plan along-with application.

Heard. Allowed.

Put up for the said purpose for 25.04.2025.

Earlier date given stands cancelled.

(Rahul Verma) CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) THC/Delhi/06.03.2025‖

19. On 25.04.2025, the Respondents sought further time to file certified copy of the site plan alongwith the application to bring on record the same. Accordingly, the Execution Petition was adjourned on 06.06.2025. The order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller is as under:

―25EX445/25 SATBEER KUMAR Vs. GOVERDHAN LAL 25.04.2025 The regular stenographer of this Court is on leave today.

Present: Ld. Counsel for the DH.

Ld. Counsel for the DH seeks some more time to file certified copy of the site plan along with application to bring on record the same.

Put up for filing of the same for 06.06.2025.

(Rahul Verma) CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) THC/Delhi/25.04.2025‖

20. On 29.04.2025, an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed for bringing on record the certified copy of the site plan and early hearing before the learned Rent Controller, which was allowed. On the same date, the Respondents pressed for Warrants of Possession without issuing notice to the Applicants. The learned Rent Controller issued Warrants of RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 6 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 Possession observing that there was no stay against the Eviction Order and directed the Respondents to appear before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Central) for appointment of Bailiff on 02.06.2025 and accordingly, listed the Execution Petition on 11.07.2025. The learned Rent Controller cancelled the date given earlier of 06.06.2025. The order dated 29.04.2025 is as under:

―Ex. 445/2025

Satbeer Kumar Vs. Goverdhan Lal 29.04.2025 File is taken up on an application u/s 151 CPC for early hearing.

Present: Ld. Counsel for the DH.

One application u/s 151 CPC is filed for bringing on record certified copy of site plan. Certified copy of site plan filed.

Heard.

In view of the submissions, application stands allowed. At this stage, warrants of possession is pressed.

Issue Warrants of Possession against the JDs on filing of PF as well as an affidavit of the DH to the effect that there is no stay against the eviction order, within 07 working days, returnable for 11.07.2025. DH to appear before the Ld. ACJ(Central) for appointment of Bailiff on 02.06.2025. Bailiff would be at liberty to break open the locks and to seek police assistance, if need arises, for execution of Warrants of Possession.

Earlier date given stands cancelled.

(Rahul Verma) CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) THC/Delhi/29.04.2025‖

21. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that on 05.06.2025, the Bailiff from the Court of the learned Rent Controller reached the tenanted premises for execution of Warrants of Possession and took possession of the tenanted premises on 05.06.2025. Being aggrieved by this RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 7 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 act of taking the possession of the tenanted premises by the Respondents, the Applicants have approached this Court by way of this Application pursuant to the liberty granted vide order dated 19.02.2025 in this Revision Petition.

22. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that this Court, while passing the order dated 19.02.2025, was conscious that there was no stay of the Eviction Order at that stage and, in the interregnum, if there are any coercive steps taken to dispossess the Applicants, a liberty was specifically granted to the Applicants to approach this Court in accordance with law.

23. It is evident from the series of orders passed by the learned Rent Controller by cancelling the dates already granted and issuing the Warrants of Possession while allowing the early hearing application that there was no notice issued to the Applicants before passing the Warrants of Possession by the learned Rent Controller.

24. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the dispossession of the Applicants is in violation of Section 37 of the DRC Act, which provides as under:

―37. Procedure to be followed by Controller.--(1) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under this Act without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the Controller.

(2) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Controller shall, while holding an inquiry in any proceeding before him, follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence. (3) In all proceedings before him, the Controller shall consider the question of costs and award such costs to or against any party as the Controller considers reasonable.‖ RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 8 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50

25. It is submitted that the above provision is mandatory and the Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to pass "any order", which prejudicially affects "any person", which includes a tenant, without giving a reasonable opportunity for showing cause. It is further submitted that this provision does not distinguish between an eviction order and an execution order. It is mandatory for the learned Rent Controller to give a reasonable notice to a tenant before issuing Warrants of Possession.

26. Further, it is submitted that Section 37 of the DRC Act is a general provision, placed under Chapter VI of DRC Act, dealing with the appointment and powers of the Rent Controller and, therefore, the said provision is also applicable for the execution proceedings. The mandatory requirement of giving reasonable notice to the Applicants as per Section 37 of the DRC Act, before issuing Warrants of Possession was clearly not followed in the present case. An order issuing Warrants of Possession affects the Applicants prejudicially. The prejudice also stems from the fact that the Revision Petition has been rendered infructuous as the Applicants were deprived of the remedy of approaching this Court pursuant to liberty granted vide order dated 19.02.2025 by this Court.

27. It is submitted that on the plain reading of Section 37 of the DRC Act, the legislature has contemplated to cover all kinds of orders passed by the Rent Controller including the orders of Warrants of Possession, which affects any person prejudicially. Section 37 of the DRC Act mentions "any order", without any kind of distinction between orders passed in eviction proceedings and orders passed in execution proceedings. The learned Counsel for the Applicants have relied upon a decision in the case of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Vemuganti Ramakrishna Rao (2013) 8 RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 9 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 SCC 789 by the Supreme Court to submit that the statute has to be read as it is and without adding or taking away from a statute. Therefore, as per Section 37 of the DRC Act, the learned Rent Controller ought to have issued prior notice to the Applicants before issuance of Warrants of Possession, which prejudicially affected the Applicants.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS:

28. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that this Application is filed under Section 151 of CPC, which shows that there is no provision under the DRC Act for granting the relief sought by the Applicants in the present Application. Section 151 of CPC is not applicable to the proceedings under the DRC Act.

29. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Eviction Order was passed on 02.08.2024 and the statutory protection from dispossession under the provisions of the DRC Act expired on 02.02.2025. No stay was granted by this Court on 09.01.2025 when the Revision Petition was adjourned to 19.02.2025. Although the Applicants had argued vehemently on the Application seeking stay, but this Court was not inclined to give the said relief. As such, there was no impediment in execution of the Eviction Order. On 19.02.2025 as well, no stay of the Eviction Order was granted by this Court. The Respondents were entitled to file the Execution Petition, since no stay was granted by this Court on 09.01.2025 as well as 19.02.2025.

30. In any event, for stay of execution proceedings, the tenant is always asked to pay the use and occupation charges, which implies that if no such charges are fixed, there is no stay and the tenant is liable to be evicted in execution. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied upon order RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 10 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 dated 19.03.2024 in RC. REV. 284/2023 passed by this Court in case of "Om Prakash Ashok Kumar and Sons v. Sh. Ajay Khurana", whereby this Court refused to fix the use and occupation charges as there was no stay of the eviction order passed in that case.

31. Accordingly, there was no illegality in the execution process and the possession has been taken over legally. Even assuming if the possession was illegal or faulty, the proper remedy would be to challenge the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in the Execution Petition and the present Application for restoration and stay is not a proper remedy. Till date, there is no challenge to the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller in the Execution Petition.

32. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that there is no requirement of prior notice for issuance of Warrants of Possession as Section 37 of the DRC Act applies to only those circumstances where an order would prejudicially affect any "right" of a person. Once an order of eviction is passed by the learned Rent Controller, the status of a tenant in the tenanted premises is akin to that of a trespasser / unauthorised occupant.

33. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Property (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705, which holds as under:

―14. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., MANU/SC/0432/2000:

[2000]245ITR360(SC) Shri Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel submitted that the decree of trial Court merges in the decree of the appellate Court and, therefore, the tenant shall continue to remain a tenant (and shall not become an unlawful occupant), until the passing of decree by the highest Court because the decree would achieve a finality only when the proceedings have finally terminated and then the decree of trial Court shall stand merged in the decree of the RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 11 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 appellate Court, the date whereof only would be relevant for determining the nature of occupation of the tenant. We are not impressed.

15. In Kunhayammed & Ors. (supra), this Court, on an elaborate discussion of the available authorities, held that once the superior Court has disposed of the lis before it either way, i.e. whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior Court, Tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below. However, this Court has also observed that the doctrine of merger is not of universal or unlimited application. In spite of merger the actual fact would remain that it was the decree or order appealed against which had directed the termination of tenancy with effect from which date the tenant had ceased to be the tenant, and the obligation of the tenant to deliver possession over the tenancy premises came into operation though the same remained suspended because of the order of stay.

16. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the tenant having suffered a decree or order for eviction may continue his fight before the superior forum but, on the termination of the proceedings and the decree or order of eviction first passed having been maintained, the tenancy would stand terminated with effect from the date of the decree passed by the lower forum. In the case of premises governed by rent control legislation, the decree of eviction on being affirmed, would be determinative of the date of termination of tenancy and the decree of affirmation passed by the superior forum at any subsequent stage or date, would not, by reference to the doctrine of merger have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy.

17. In the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, the definition of 'a tenant' is contained in Clause (I) of Section 2. Tenant includes 'any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy' and does not include 'any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made'. This definition is identical with the definition of tenant dealt with by this Court in Chander Kali Bai & Ors. case (supra). The tenant-respondent herein having suffered an order for eviction on 19.3.2001, his tenancy would be deemed to have come to an end with effect from that date and he shall become an unauthorized occupant. It would not make any difference if the order of eviction has been put in issue in appeal or revision and is confirmed by the RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 12 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

34. It is submitted that the Eviction Order was passed on 02.08.2024, from date which the Applicants were deemed to be unauthorised occupants of the tenanted premises. Thus, the provision of Section 37 of the DRC Act would not be applicable as no "right" of the Applicants has been affected by issuance of Warrants of Possession since there was no right existed in the tenanted premises to begin with.

35. In view of the above, there was no requirement to serve a notice to the Applicants prior to issuance of the Warrants of Possession. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in J.R. Vohra v. India Export House Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 475, which holds that:

―10. Counsel for the respondents relied upon Section 37 of the Act to canvas the contention that service of a prior notice upon the tenant before he is evicted would be necessary but that section deals with the practice and procedure required to be followed by the Rent Controller in proceeding before him and it mainly provides that subject to any rules that may be made under the Act the Controller shall, while holding an inquiry in any proceeding before him, follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a court of small causes, including the recording of evidence. In particular counsel relied upon Sub-section (1) of Section 37 which provides that "no order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under this Act without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the Controller". In our view all that Sub-section (1) does is to incorporate a rule of natural justice, namely, that an order prejudicially affecting a person shall not be made without hearing him and considering his objections if any to the proposed order. But an order can be said to affect a person prejudicially only if any right of his would be affected adversely and as stated earlier in view of the non-obstante clause RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 13 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 contained in Section 21 the tenant on the expiry of the limited period has no right or protection whatsoever under any law to continue in possession and as such the issuance of a warrant of possession directing him to vacate the premises in his occupation cannot be regarded as one which prejudicially affects him. Section 37(1) therefore, cannot be construed as requiring service of a prior notice upon the tenant before issuance of a warrant of possession against him. In other words neither Section 21 nor Section 37 nor the Rules framed under the Act require service of any prior notice upon the tenant before he is evicted and the order directing issuance of warrant of possession under Section 21, without prior notice to the tenant, for the purpose of putting the landlord in possession of the leased premises at the expiry of the limited tenancy cannot be regarded as illegal, invalid or unwarranted.‖

36. In view of the above, it is submitted that no service of any prior notice is required upon the tenant before he is evicted. It is submitted that the Applicants have already enjoyed statutory protection of 6 (six) months and were aware of the ejectment any day. Mere grant of liberty to approach this Court does not mean that the Applicants were entitled to notice of Execution Petition.

37. As per Section 42 of the DRC Act, the Rent Controller has all the powers of Civil Court for execution of orders as a decree of a Civil Court. Section 42 of the DRC Act provides as under:

―42. Controller to exercise powers of civil court for execution of other orders.-Save as otherwise provided in section 41, an order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under this Act shall be executable by the Controller as a decree of a civil court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a civil court.‖

38. In view of the above, the learned Rent Controller has power of a Civil Court for execution of the Eviction Order. As per Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC, the notice to show cause against execution is required to be issued in certain cases. The said provision is extracted below:

RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 14 of 30

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 ―22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases.¬-(1) Where an application for execution is made,-

(a) more than [two years] after the date of the decree, or

(b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree [or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of section 44A], [or] [(c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent,] the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him:

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than [two years] having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within [two years] from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor if upon a previous application for execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him.

(2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice.‖

39. It is submitted that none of the circumstances provided under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC are applicable to the Applicants in the present case and hence, the Applicants were disentitled to receive any notice of execution proceedings.

40. As per Atma Ram (supra), the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end on passing of an eviction order. The proceedings of execution are governed by CPC which prescribes that no notice to the Judgment Debtor is required in an execution when it is filed within 2 (two) RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 15 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 years of passing of a decree. It is submitted that Section 37 of the DRC Act was exhausted when the Petitioners were heard during the proceedings in Eviction Petition. It is not required that in all subsequent proceedings, including execution, when the Applicants are no longer a tenant but an unauthorised occupant, the Applicants are to be heard. Moreover, there is no automatic stay when a revision petition is pending before this Court.

41. As the possession has been taken over lawfully, it cannot be restored to the Applicants by way of an interim order as it would be a drastic remedy and will seriously prejudice the Respondents. In any case, if the Applicants do not succeed in the Revision Petition, any order passed in this Application, in favour of the Applicants, would seriously prejudice the Respondents. The Applicants ought to have acted diligently and pressed for stay within time available to them and should not have waited for execution of the Eviction Order. No prejudice would be caused to the Applicants as they have other shops as well and the goods have been shifted from the tenanted premises to the other shops.

42. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the allegation of fraud made in the Application is baseless as all the orders passed in the Revision Petition were placed before the learned Rent Controller in Execution Petition, when the Warrants of Possession was issued. Nothing has been concealed by the Respondents before the learned Rent Controller. In light of the above, there was no mandate for the learned Rent Controller to defer the Execution Petition during the pendency of the Revision Petition before this Court or to issue notice to the Applicants before issuing Warrants of Possession.

43. It is submitted that a stay application was already filed along with the RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 16 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 Revision Petition, and the non-grant of stay by this Court amounted to a refusal. It was further submitted that the Applicants did not pursue any remedies against such refusal. At the same time, the Respondents were at liberty to proceed with the Execution Petition.

44. In any event, the Revision Petition has become infructuous in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of N.C. Daga v. Indermohan Singh Rana (2003) 1 SCC 453, which is followed by judgments of this Court that once the possession is legally taken by the landlord, the revision petition of tenant becomes infructuous. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied upon order dated 04.10.2024 in Ashok Gupta & Ors. v. Deepak Rao RC. REV. 419/2018, order dated 26.07.2024 in Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons v. Ajay Khurana RC. REV. 284/2023 and order dated 29.10.2024 in Sher Singh v. Sunil Yadav & Ors. RC. REV. 295/2018 passed by this Court.

45. It is submitted that Section 19 of the DRC Act only contemplates 2 (two) scenarios when the possession of premises in question can be restored to the evicted tenant, however, no such ground has been agitated by the Applicants in this Application. In order to recover the possession, the Applicants are required to initiate appropriate proceedings and in absence of any of the grounds available under Section 19 of the DRC Act, the Applicants are not entitled to get any relief of restoration of possession, as prayed for in this Application.

46. It is submitted that the scope of the Revision Petition is very limited and circumspect. Accordingly, the present Application deserves to be dismissed.

RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 17 of 30

This is a digitally signed order.

47. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the decision in case of J.R. Vohra (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Supreme Court was considering the eviction of a tenant under Section 21 of the DRC Act, which is evident from paragraph no. 8 of the said decision, which is reproduced below:

―8. An analysis of the above provision will show that in regard to tenancies for limited period mentioned therein only two orders are contemplated by the section: (i) an order by the Rent Controller sanctioning or permitting the creation of a tenancy for a particular fixed period only, and (ii) an order by the Rent Controller putting the landlord in vacant possession of the leased premises by evicting the tenant and every other occupier thereof at the expiry of that period. It is also clear that before passing the first order the Rent Controller is required to satisfy himself that the two conditions mentioned in the section are genuinely satisfied in every case, namely, (a) that the landlord does not require the premises 'for a particular period' only and (b) that the letting itself is for residential purposes and no other. The landlord's non-requirement of the premises for a particular period may arise out of various circumstances for instance, being an officer' he may be going on some other assignment for a particular period or being in occupation of official quarters he may have to vacate the same on his retirement or having borrowed a loan for the construction he may desire to clear it of before occupying the premises for his own use, etc it cannot be disputed that both the conditions must be truly, fulfilled and not by way of any make-belief before the Rent Controller grants his permission for the creation of such limited tenancy but once such limited tenancy is properly created the second order of putting the landlord in vacant possession of the leased premises by evicting the tenant at the expiry of the fixed period has to be passed as a matter of course because the tenant, in view of the non-obstante clause contained in the section, has no right or protection whatsoever under law to continue in possession nor has he any defence to eviction and the section does not contemplate the passing of any order of eviction against the tenant before issuing the warrant of possession in favour of the landlord. It is thus clear that the second order contemplated by the section is in the nature of a RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 18 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 process in execution whereunder the landlord has to be put in possession of the leased premises by evicting the tenant and every other occupant thereof, and no notice to the tenant is contemplated before issuing the warrant of possession for putting the landlord in possession.‖

48. Section 21 of the DRC Act contemplates 2 (two) types of orders that can be passed by the Rent Controller:

i. An order sanctioning / permitting the creation of a tenancy for a particular fixed period only, and ii. An order putting the landlord in vacant possession of the tenanted premises by evicting the tenant and any other occupier at the expiry of the limited tenancy period.

49. The order for evicting the tenant, after the expiry of limited tenancy, under Section 21 of the DRC Act is to be passed as a matter of course and it contains a non-obstante clause, due to which the tenant neither has any right / protection under law to continue in possession, nor has any defence against such eviction. Therefore, the order under Section 21 of the DRC Act is, itself, in the nature of an execution order, whereby landlord as a matter of right has to be put into possession, as tenant has no possession whatsoever.

It is in this context that the Supreme Court has held in the case of J.R. Vohra (supra) that there is no requirement of notice to the tenant under Section 37 of the DRC Act, before the issuance of Warrants of Possession in cases covered by Section 21 of the DRC Act, which is a complete code in itself.

50. In view of the same, the ratio laid down in J.R. Vohra (supra), which only deals with Section 21 of the DRC Act and not the requirement of notice under Section 37 of the DRC Act in cases not covered by Section 21 of the RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 19 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

51. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that if the ratio in J.R. Vohra (supra) is applied to all cases of eviction under the DRC Act, such a reading of Section 37 of the DRC Act would amount to adding of words in Section 37(1) of the DRC Act. The learned Counsel for the Applicants reiterated that a plain reading of Section 37 of the DRC Act covers both eviction orders and execution orders.

52. As regards applicability of Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC pursuant to Section 42 of the DRC Act, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that in view of Rule 23 of Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 ("DRC Rules"), the CPC can be followed only where there is no procedure specifically provided under the DRC Act or the DRC Rules. Rule 23 of the DRC Rules provides as under:

―23. Code of Civil Procedure to be generally followed.--In deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act and these rules, the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.‖

53. In view of the above, Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC cannot be relied upon for procedure relating to prior notice under Section 37 of the DRC Act, as the same is specifically provided under the Act.

54. As regards the submissions of the Respondents in relation to the Revision Petition having been rendered infructuous as during the pendency of the Revision Petition, possession has been handed over to the Respondents, the learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the cases relied upon by the Respondents are distinguishable as it is not clear from the facts of said cases whether a notice of the Execution Petition was served on RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 20 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 the tenant in those cases. Accordingly, there was no occasion for this Court to examine the applicability of Section 37 of the DRC Act.

55. The Applicants are seeking restoration of the possession of the tenanted premises since the dispossession of the Applicants has been carried out in a mala fide manner and in such a situation, this Court is not powerless to order status quo ante, where a person is wrongly dispossessed.

56. The learned Counsel for the Applicants relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in matter of Tanusree Basu v. Ishani Prasad Basu (2008) 4 SCC 791, which held that if a party takes recourse to any contrivance to dispossess another during pendency of the suit, either in violation of the order of injunction or otherwise, the Court indisputably will have jurisdiction to restore the parties back to the same position:

―23. It is not the law that a party to a suit during pendency thereof shall take law into his hands and dispossess the other co-sharer. If a party takes recourse to any contrivance to dispossess another, during pendency of the suit either in violation of the order of injunction or otherwise, the court indisputably will have jurisdiction to restore the parties back to the same position.‖

57. The learned Counsel for the Applicants have also relied upon the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kailash Chand Gupta v. Rukam Singh Yadav 1998 SCC OnLine MP 136, which held that the Court in exercise of inherent powers, i.e., under Section 151 of CPC can pass order for ends of justice to undo the wrong done to an aggrieved party:

―21. It was observed in the aforesaid decision that the Court had ample jurisdiction and perfectly justified in passing an order of mandatory injunction under section 151 of the Code, for the restoration of possession to the aggrieved party in case such a party had been dispossessed in disobedience of an order of injunction. It was observed that the Court can in exercise of its inherent power pass such order for ends of justice as would undo the wrong done to RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 21 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 the aggrieved party.‖

58. The High Court of Calcutta in matter of Gopal Chandra Ghosh v. Tinkari Ray 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10615 held that under Section 151 of CPC, the landlord can be directed to restore status quo ante, where the tenant has been illegally possessed:

―60. Now the question arises in this peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when the Court is satisfied that during subsistence of status quo the opposite party/landlord totally dispossessed the petitioner/tenant most illegally and unfairly whether this Court has jurisdiction to restore back the possession or put the clock back by restoring status quo ante in favour of the petitioner. In this regard, the Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court is giving a clear guideline. Similar situation arose in case of (Smt. Usha Ghosh) (supra) and the Hon'ble Division Bench held where the execution has been made not by the executing court in the manner provided under Civil Procedure Code, but in a manner which amounts to a fraud upon the statute, the question cannot be said to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of executing court under section 47. If the decree was not executed in accordance with order of the executing Court it does not come within the scope of section 47 of the Code. The Execution was on the face of it void and in view of Hon'ble Appeal Court the same can be challenged wherever it is sought to be enforced and accordingly the judgment- debtor is entitled to relief before the Court It is now well-settled that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree but if the decree is passed without jurisdiction is nullity, even at the execution stage it can be questioned. In that case the judgment debtor was dispossessed in a manner which was gross abuse of process of court and when the process was void by gross abuse of process of court, somebody's eviction is not an eviction in the eye of law. It is firmly established principle that Order 21 of the Code provides a complete procedure for executing a decree and as such a decree could not be executed and possession of the property could not be taken by taking recourse to means beyond the provisions of Order 21 or by extra- judicial methods. In case of Smt. Usha Ghosh (supra) the decree- holder obtained possession by obtaining an administrative order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during pendency of the execution proceeding and this Hon'ble Court was RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 22 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 pleased to set aside that order and put back the tenant in possession holding that the order under section 144 is administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi-judicial. Judicial Magistrate can pass ex parte order where emergent situation arose.

61. In that case no notice was given to the judgment-debtor and no hearing was given. The order was ex parte, admittedly there was no urgency involved in such a case which had warranted the necessity of passing an order for preventing public disorder. No proceeding has been drawn up, no show-cause was issued and the judgment-

debtor was not heard before the order was passed, the manner in which power was exercised by Executive Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicated that the order was passed for an unauthorised purpose. However, taking over possession by that process was not approved by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Division Bench held that this is not permissible under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It was also found by the Hon'ble Division Bench that Officer-in-Charge, Titagarh Police Station also had acted in collusion with the decree-holder inasmuch on the very day the Executive Magistrate passed an order directing the police authorities to submit a report and the police authorities, it appears in course of same day and with an unprecedented speed, submitted a got up report that there was a likelihood of resistance at the time of taking over possession. Therefore, there is no doubt that this Court have power and jurisdiction to restore back possession in such a situation.‖

59. In view of the above, it was submitted that despite the non-existence of stay of Eviction Order, the possession was obtained by depriving the Applicants any opportunity of seeking interim order pursuant to liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025 and the possession was not taken in accordance with law as the same was in violation of Section 37 of the DRC Act. Accordingly, the Applicants pray that the present Application be allowed and the Respondents be directed to handover the possession of the tenanted premises to the Applicants forthwith. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

60. The core issue for consideration in this Application is whether the RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 23 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 possession of the tenanted premises was taken over by the Respondents in accordance with law and whether a prior notice, giving a reasonable opportunity to the tenant of showing cause, is required under Section 37 of the DRC Act before issuing warrants of possession pursuant to an eviction order.

61. Section 37 of the DRC Act provides for procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller before passing any order under the DRC Act that prejudicially affects any person. It requires that a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, against an order that is proposed to be passed, has to be given to such person and after considering any objections and any evidence produced in support of such objections; the Rent Controller can pass such an order.

62. The above requirement contemplates that the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the Rent Controller before passing any order under the DRC Act that prejudicially affects any person. An opportunity to show cause before passing such order and also making it compulsory to consider the objections and evidence produced before the Rent Controller, protects the rights of a person, against whom an order is passed that would affect such person prejudicially.

63. There is no exception carved out for an order for issuance of warrants of possession under Section 37 of the DRC Act. The warrants of possession is issued under the provisions of the DRC Act and, accordingly, the same shall be included in the scope of requirement under Section 37 of the DRC Act.

64. The decision of the Supreme Court in J.R. Vohra (supra) was specifically dealing with the facts arising out of the recovery of possession RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 24 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 in cases of tenancy for limited period. Section 21 of the DRC Act clearly mentions that the Rent Controller may, on an application made by the landlord, place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises by evicting the tenant notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 of the DRC Act or any other law. The provisions of Section 21 of the DRC Act are applicable in limited circumstances when the tenancies are for limited purpose. The decision of the Supreme Court in J.R. Vohra (supra) did not deal with the notice under Section 37 of the DRC Act prior to issuance of warrants of possession in cases other than recovery of possession under Section 21 of the DRC Act.

65. The next question that arises is: whether an order directing warrants of possession in absence of any stay of the eviction order would amount to an order that would prejudicially affect a tenant and if possession is taken over pursuant to such an order, whether the same would be unlawful.

66. It is trite law that in absence of a stay against an order of eviction, the landlord is entitled to proceed with the execution of the eviction order. There is no automatic stay upon filing of a revision petition before the High Court. In any case, the power of the High Court under revision petition is limited to examining the legality and propriety of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Accordingly, there is no inhibition for filing execution proceedings during the pendency of the revision petition before the High Court if there is no stay of the eviction order.

67. However, in the present case, this Court had instead of granting a stay of the Eviction Order, granted liberty to the Applicants to file an appropriate application in the event that any coercive steps, for taking over the possession were taken by the Respondents vide order dated 19.02.2025. The RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 25 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 said order was passed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the Respondents and the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2025 at joint request of both Parties.

68. The Execution Petition was filed on 25.02.2025 subsequent to passing of the order dated 19.02.2025. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents and as is evident from the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in the Execution Petition by the learned Rent Controller that the order dated 19.02.2025 of this Court was placed before the learned Rent Controller at the time of passing the order dated 27.02.2025 in Execution Petition. Accordingly, the Execution Petition was listed on 29.07.2025, i.e., a day after the date fixed for hearing of Revision Petition by this Court on 28.07.2025.

69. However, the said date was cancelled and changed to 25.04.2025, when the Respondents filed an application for placing on record certified copy of the site plan, without annexing a copy of the site plan, on 06.03.2025. Even on 25.04.2025, the Respondents did not file the certified copy of the site plan and the Execution Petition was adjourned to 06.06.2025. In the meanwhile, on 29.04.2025, the Respondents filed another application for placing on record the certified copy of the site plan and early hearing, which was taken on record and the said application was allowed. On the said date itself, on oral request of the Respondents, the Warrants of Possession was issued against the Applicants, without issuing any notice to the Applicants.

70. It is apparent that the learned Rent Controller was aware about the Revision Petition being pending before this Court as the order dated 29.04.2025 records that there is no stay against the Eviction Order. The RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 26 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 sequence of the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller by firstly adjourning the Execution Petition subsequent to the date of hearing of Revision Petition before this Court and, thereafter, cancelling the same and issuing Warrants of Possession despite being aware about the order dated 19.02.2025, shows that the learned Rent Controller passed the orders consciously. The said orders having been passed without issuing notice to the Applicants have prejudiced the Applicants as the possession has been taken over without giving any opportunity to the Applicants to show cause, as contemplated under Section 37 of the DRC Act or approaching this Court by way of an appropriate application pursuant to liberty granted vide order dated 19.02.2025.

71. The conduct of the Respondents is also in nature of over-reaching the judicial process as the Execution Petition was filed immediately after passing of the order dated 19.02.2025 and by filing successive applications under the pretext of filing the certified copy of site plan, the date of the Execution Petition, which was subsequent to the hearing of the Revision Petition before this Court, was preponed and the Warrants of Possession was issued at the oral request of the Respondents although the Execution Petition was only taken up for an application under Section 151 of CPC for early hearing.

72. Accordingly, the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller in the Execution Petition, without issuing a prior notice to the Applicants, as required under Section 37 of the DRC Act, was unlawful.

73. By passing the said order issuing Warrants of Possession and taking over the possession of the tenanted premises without issuing any prior notice to the Applicants, the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 27 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

74. As regards the submission of the Respondents that the requirement of prior notice is applicable only to the proceedings of the eviction and not execution, the same is not supported by a plain reading of Section 37 of the DRC Act, which provides for any order that may prejudice any person. In the present case, when the Respondents and the learned Rent Controller were fully aware about the liberty granted by this Court to the Applicants in view of passing an order of stay of the Eviction Order, it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to issue notice and give an opportunity to the Applicants.

75. The submission of the Respondents that the Applicants were trespassers after the passing of the Eviction Order as they were no longer tenants even during the pendency of the Revision Petition before this Court, does not absolve the learned Rent Controller from giving an opportunity to the Applicants as the requirement to give such an opportunity is for "any person" and not restricted to a tenant alone. Hence, the requirement under Section 37 of the DRC Act would be applicable even after the Eviction Order has been passed and no stay has been granted in the Revision Petition.

76. The decision of Atma Ram (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there was no issue with regard to issuance of prior notice before issuance of Warrants of Possession subsequent to passing of the Eviction Order and not granting of stay during the pendency of the Revision Petition. The contention of the Respondents that when there is no right of a tenant to continue in the possession post passing of the Eviction Order and when the stay of the same has not been granted and also when the Applicants are not paying any the use and occupation charges, no prejudice RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 28 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 can be caused to the Applicants by not granting an opportunity of notice prior to issuance of Warrants of Possession, cannot be accepted as the Warrants of Possession clearly prejudiced the Applicants as they were deprived of approaching this Court pursuant to liberty granted vide order dated 19.02.2025 and made the Revision Petition infructuous.

77. As regards the power of the learned Rent Controller to act as a Civil Court for the purpose of execution of the Eviction Order under Section 42 of the DRC Act read with Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC, the same does not take away the obligation under Section 37 of the DRC Act, which specifically provides for the procedure to be followed by the learned Rent Controller while passing any order under the DRC Act. Rule 23 of the DRC Rules specifically provides that the provisions of CPC would be a guiding factor only when the procedure is not specifically provided by the DRC Act. When the procedure is provided specifically under Section 37 of the DRC Act, the same has to be followed irrespective of provisions of Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC.

78. The decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court hold that once the possession has been restored to the landlord, the Revision Petition becomes infructuous and the same has to be dismissed. However, the said decisions contemplate that the possession of the tenanted premises has been taken over in accordance with law. If the possession has been handed over without following mandatory provisions of the DRC Act, then the same would not be lawful and the Revision Petition cannot become infructuous.

79. In the present case, although there was no stay, there was a specific order that was passed by this Court granting liberty to the Applicants to approach this Court in the event of any coercive steps being taken by the RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 29 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50 Respondents for taking over the possession. The said direction was passed with the knowledge of the Respondents and the same was also brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller. At the first instance, the learned Rent Controller had rightly adjourned the Execution Petition to a date subsequent to the hearing of the Revision Petition scheduled before this Court. At that stage, no notice was issued to the Applicants as the Execution Petition was simply adjourned. However, when an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed for early hearing, before passing any order directing issuance of Warrants of Possession, a notice was required to be issued to the Applicants. The taking over of the possession pursuant to order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Execution Petition is not in accordance with law and hence, this Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass appropriate direction to grant status quo ante when the Applicants are wrongly dispossessed as held in cases of Tanusree Basu (supra), Kailash Chand Gupta (supra) and Gopal Chandra Ghosh (supra).

80. In view of the same, the present Application is allowed and the Respondents are directed to restore the possession of the tenanted premises bearing Shop No. 352, Katra Munshi Gauri Shankar (also known as Naya Katra), near Moti Cinema, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 forthwith to the Applicants.

RC.REV. 315/2024

81. List before the Roster Bench on the date already fixed, i.e., 28.07.2025.

TEJAS KARIA, J (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 16, 2025/sms Click here to check corrigendum, if any RC.REV. 315/2024 Page 30 of 30 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/06/2025 at 21:17:50

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sh. Goverdhan Lal & Anr vs Sh. Satbeer Kumar & Ors on 16 June, 2025