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 6RC.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.
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
order to forcibly secure possession of the tenanted premises despite the
pendency of the Revision Petition before this Court.
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.
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
Accordingly, the said application is dismissed.
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 theRC.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 theRC.REV. 315/2024 Page 12 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
superior forum at a latter date. The date of termination of tenancy
would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger.‖
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 clauseRC.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.
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
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANTS:
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 aRC.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.
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
DRC Act, is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
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 toRC.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 wasRC.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.
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
19.02.2025 was rendered meaningless.
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