Final Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS :
DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-018468-2024
RCT Appeal No. 26/2025
Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Vir Pal,
R/o 9340, Gashala Road,
Katra Ganga Bishan,
Kishanganj, Delhi-110006
...Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Farshwal
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Bishan
R/o E-144, Masjid Moth,
Greater Kailash-III,
Delhi-110048
...Respondent
Date of institution : 26.11.2024
Arguments heard on : 19.05.2026
Date of pronouncement : 19.05.2026
Appearance:
Sh. Mohit Bhardwaj, Ld. Proxy counsel for
appellant.
Sh. Karan Kanwal, Ld. Proxy Counsel for
LRs of respondent.
O R D E R :
1. The present appeal under Section 96 read with
Section 151 CPC arises out of order dated 26.09.2024, whereby
objections filed by the objectors have been dismissed by the Court
-- 1 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 2 of 13
of ARC while dealing with execution relating to eviction decree.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that eviction
petitions were filed by landlord Vijay Kumar Farshwal relating to
property bearing no.9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Gaushala Road,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006 and the said petitions were allowed
and were confirmed upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order
dated 01.04.2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted time to the
tenants to vacate the premises till 15.05.2024.
3. However, in the execution petition pending before
Ld. ARC, the objections have been filed by the objectors claiming
ownership of the property by way of adverse possession. All the
pending objections were taken up by Ld. ARC and dismissed vide
the impugned order with the following conclusion-
“Conclusion:-
20. This court does not find any reason to
accept any of the submissions made on behalf of
these objectors. It appears that these objectors
are just a front of JDs who are desperately trying
to wriggle out from an eviction order and also from
the submission made by them before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for vacating the property in a time
frame. The gracious concession given by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court despite dismissing the SLP
is clearly being tried to be contravened at the
hands of the JDs by not vacating the property or by
filing objections themselves or by bringing third
-- 2 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 3 of 13
persons to file another objector. For example, Ram
Narayan had file SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and had lost but was granted time to vacate
the property. Now, Ram Wati (who is wife of Ram
Narayan) has filed the one of instant
objection/applications. It is unimaginable that she
was not having knowledge about the case earlier.
21. In my humble view none of the
objections have any merits and appears to be
filed just to derailed the execution proceedings
therefore, all the objections/applications are
rejected and dismissed.”
4. During the course of arguments it has been
submitted on behalf of landlord/respondent that possession of the
premises have already been taken over and nothing survives in the
present appeal. The issue of maintainability of present appeal has
also been raised.
5. After having considered the facts and circumstances
of the case and submissions, I am of the opinion that the appeal as
such is not maintainable under Section 96 r/w Sec.151 CPC.
Normally, appeal against the order of Ld. ARC is maintainable
under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. However, the
present appeal is not maintainable even under Section 38 of Delhi
Rent Control Act by virtue of the bar created by Section 14(1)(e)
-- 3 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 4 of 13
r/w Sec.25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
6. The relevant judgment on this aspect is Mohd.
Arshad & Ors. vs Syed Mohd. Yahaya Nizami, CM (M)
661/2022 dated 15.10.2024, wherein it has been held as
follows:-
2. The short question posed in the present petition is
whether the tenants ought to have filed a revision
against order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the learned
Addition Rent Controller or whether appeal filed by
them under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”) was
maintainable.
….
5. Landlord had filed a petition seeking eviction of their
tenants from the tenanted premises on the ground of
bonafide requirement. Such eviction petition filed under
Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act was
instituted way back in the year 2012. The tenants sought
leave to defend which was, initially, allowed by the
learned Rent Controller. However, feeling aggrieved,
the landlord knocked the doors of this Court and vide
order dated 14.02.2017, passed by this Court in CM(M)
1007/2016, said order, granting leave to defend, was set
aside and, resultantly, an eviction order was passed
against the tenants.
-- 4 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 5 of 13
…..
7. However, when an execution petition was instituted
for getting back the possession of the tenanted premises,
the tenants filed objection and their such objection
petition has been dismissed by the learned Rent
Controller vide order dated 10.03.2022. While
dismissing the above said objection petition, the learned
Additional Rent Controller also directed issuance of
warrants of possession against the tenants with
permission to break open the lock, doors and windows.
8. The tenants challenged the above said order dated
10.03.2022 by filing an appeal before learned Rent
Control Tribunal under Section 38 of DRC Act.
9. However, such appeal has been dismissed on the
ground of maintainability as the learned Tribunal held
that in view of the statutory bar contained under Section
25B(8) of DRC Act, such appeal could not have been
filed.
10. Such order dated 01.07.2022 is under challenge.
11. I may reiterate that the question to be adjudicated is
to assess the remedy available to any such tenant-
whether an appeal under Section 38 of DRC Act would
lie or whether, in view of bar provided under Section
25B(8) of DRC Act, only a revision is competent.
12. The merits or demerits of the objection filed by the
tenants are not to be gone into, at the moment.
13. Admittedly, as per Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act,
-- 5 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 6 of 13
any tenanted premises which are required bonafide by
landlord for himself or for any member of his family
dependent on him, eviction can be sought.
14. A summary procedure was introduced in DRC Act
and by virtue of Act 18 of 1976, Chapter IIIA was
inserted in DRC Act.
15. Such Chapter IIIA reads as under:-
“25A. Provisions of this Chapter to have
overriding effect.—The provisions of this Chapter
or any rule made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law
for the time being in force.
25B. Special procedure for the disposal of
applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide
requirement.— (1) Every application by a landlord
for the recovery of possession of any premises on
the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 14, or under section 14-
A or under Section 14-B or under Section 14-C or
under Section 14-D shall be dealt with in
accordance with the procedure specified in this
section.
(2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation
to every application referred to in sub-section (1),
in the form specified in the Third Schedule.
-- 6 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 7 of 13
(3) (a) The Controller shall, in addition to, and
simultaneously with, the issue of summons for
service on the tenant, also direct the summons to
be served by registered post, acknowledgment
due, addressed to the tenant or his agent
empowered to accept the service at the place where
the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily
resides or carries on business or personally works
for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case
so require, also direct the publication of the
summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality
in which the tenant is last known to have resided or
carried on business or personally worked for
gain.
(b) When an acknowledgment purporting to be
signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the
Controller or the registered article containing the
summons is received back with an endorsement
purporting to have been made by a postal
employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent
had refused to take delivery of the registered
article, the Controller may declare that there has
been a valid service of summons.
(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly
served (whether in the ordinary way or by
registered post) in the form specified in the Third
-- 7 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 8 of 13
Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction
from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating
the grounds on which he seeks to contest the
application for eviction and obtains leave from
the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in
default of his appearance in pursuance of the
summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement
made by the landlord in the application for eviction
shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and
the applicant shall be entitled to an order for
eviction on the ground aforesaid.
(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to
contest the application if the affidavit filed by the
tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the
landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery
of possession of the premises on the ground
specified in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A.
(6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest
the application, the Controller shall commence the
hearing of the application as early as practicable.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2) of section 37 the Controller shall, while
holding an inquiry in a proceeding to which this
Chapter applies, follow the practice and procedure
of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording
-- 8 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 9 of 13
of evidence.
(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an
order for the recovery of possession of any
premises made by the Controller in accordance
with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the
purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by
the Controller under this section is according to
law, call for the records of the case and pass such
order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.
(9) Where no application has been made to the
High Court on revision, the Controller may
exercise the powers of review in accordance with
the provisions of Order XLVII of the First Schedule
to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(10) Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter,
the procedure for the disposal of an application for
eviction on the ground specified in clause (e) of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under
section 14A, shall be the same as the procedure for
the disposal of applications by Controllers.
25C. Act to have effect in a modified form in
relation to certain persons.—(1) Nothing
contained in sub-section (6) of section 14 shall
apply to a landlord who, being a person in
occupation of any residential premises allotted to
-- 9 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 10 of 13
him by the Central Government or any local
authority is required by or in pursuance of, an
order made by that Government or authority to
vacate such residential accommodation, or, in
default, to incur certain obligations, or the ground
that he owns a residential accommodation either in
his own name or in the name of his wife or
dependent child in the Union territory of Delhi. (2)
In the case of a landlord who, being a person of the
category specified in sub-section (1), has obtained,
on the ground specified in clause (e) of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under
section 14A, an order for the eviction of a tenant
from any premises, the provisions of subsection (7)
of section 14 shall have effect as if for the words
“six months”, occurring therein, the words “two
months” were substituted.”
16. Section 38 of DRC Act, which provides for appeal to
the Tribunal, reads as under: -
“38. Appeal to the Tribunal.—(1) An appeal shall
lie from every order of the Controller made under
this Act only on questions of law to the Rent
Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be
appointed by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette:
-- 10 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 11 of 13
Provided that no appeal shall lie from an order of
the Controller made under section 21.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be
preferred within thirty days from the date of the
order made by the Controller: Provided that the
Tribunal may entertain the appeal after the
expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(3) The Tribunal shall have all the power vested in
a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5
of 1908), when hearing an appeal.
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-
section (3), the Tribunal may, on an application
made to it or otherwise, by order transfer any
proceeding pending before any Controller or
additional Controller to another Controller or
additional Controller and the Controller or
additional Controller to whom the proceeding is
so transferred may, subject to any special
directions in the order of transfer, dispose of the
proceeding.
(5) A person shall not be qualified for appointment
to the Tribunal, unless he is, or has been, a district
judge or has for at least ten years held a judicial
office in India.”
-- 11 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 12 of 13
…….
55. After carefully delving on all the attendant facts and
circumstances and in view of foregoing discussion and
while ensuring utmost care and abundant caution in
interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, the
picture which emerges out goes on to suggest that right
to appeal is not available to the tenants herein as the
above bar given under proviso attached to section 25B
(8) of DRC Act continues to exist in context of the
proceedings herein. The order in question, even if not
actually an order of eviction, has all the shades and
trappings of eviction order, as it even directs issuance of
warrant of possession. Such interpretation seems not
only rational but also purposive one, in complete
synchronization with the legislative intention.
56. The remedial procedure prescribed for challenging
any order of eviction is, admittedly, an accelerated one
and, therefore, it will be incomprehensible to hold that
the remedial procedure for any such order passed in
execution thereof should be any different. Any
interpretation, to the contrary, would, manifestly,
mitigate against the legislative intention behind
introduction of swift procedure for such like eviction
petitions.
57. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
7. In the end, I conclude that the present appeal is not
-- 12 of 13 --
RCT ARCT No. 26/2025
page no. 13 of 13
maintainable by virtue of judgment of Mohd. Arshad & Ors.
(supra) and secondly, also since the possession of tenanted
premises has already been taken over by the landlord, appeal has
become infructuous.
8. Copy of this order alongwith records be sent to
concerned court.
9. File be consigned to record room.
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi / 19.05.2026
-- 13 of 13 --