Observing that “dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the Court”, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea with a cost of Rs 50,000 against the petitioner.
“Dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the Court. The conduct of the petitioner itself would disentitle the petitioner of any relief in the present petition,” Justice Amit Bansal said.
“In view of the discussion above, the present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs 50,000,” the court said and rejected the plea of the company challenging the order dated November 18, 2021, passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the Executing Court has issued warrants of execution in respect of the order/decree dated July 12, 2010.
Vide judgment dated July 12, 2010, the ARC allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord as the tenant failed to file the leave to defend. However, in terms of settlement arrived at between the tenant and landlord, 10 years’ time was granted to the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. Upon expiry of 10 years, the landlord filed the execution petition from which the present petition arises.
Vide impugned order dated November 18, 2021, passed by the Executing Court, request of the tenant to file a reply to the execution petition was rejected and warrants of execution of the order/decree dated July 12, 2010, were issued after noting that no appeal/revision has been preferred by the tenant against the order/decree dated July 12, 2010.
The court was dealing with a petition filed by the tenant against his landlord seeking his eviction from tenanted premises in Ajmeri Gate. The petitioner has challenged an order dated November 18, 2021, passed by the Additional Rent Controller in Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the Executing Court has issued warrants of execution in respect of the order/decree dated July 12, 2010.
“The position that emerges is that the tenant voluntarily entered into a compromise and pursuant thereto, enjoyed the benefit of staying in the tenanted premises for a period of 10 years. Now, at the stage of execution, the tenant cannot raise objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the ARC that recorded the consent order/decree. The case of the tenant herein was based on concealment of facts and the conduct of the tenant has been dishonest and unscrupulous,” the court said.
As per the compromise entered into between the parties, the tenant should have handed over possession of the tenanted premises in July 2020, that is, after the passing of 10 years of the order/decree dated July 12, 2010, passed by the ARC, the court noted.
“Despite signing statements to this effect before the ARC under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, as recorded in the order/decree passed by the ARC on July 12, 2010, the tenant held on to the tenanted premises. Copies of the statements recorded by the parties before the ARC have also deliberately not been filed along with the present petition,” the court said.
The respondent landlord was represented by advocates Prabhav Ralli and Shivaz Berry.