Interim Order 22

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 1 of 12
Ex. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN BHATIA
12.10.2025
Present : None.
ORDER
This order of mine shall decide the objections to the present
execution petition filed by the objector Sh. Satypal Vaish under Order
21 Rule 97(2) CPC.
1. The objections are been filed by the objector through his SPA
namely, Shri Pulkit Vaish. The objections have been filed on several
grounds. Firstly, that the Decree Passed is Not Binding on the
Objector. It is stated that the Objector, has been in possession of the
suit property located at 2167, Main Road Phatak Habash, Gali Hinga
Baig, Delhi-110006, for the last 62 years (since 1962), along with his
family members. That he was not made a party to the eviction petition
filed by the Decree Holder (Amna Khatoon Dehlvi) against the
Judgment Debtor (Sudershan Bhatia). That all the documents
-- 1 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 2 of 12
showing settled possession of objector and his family members for
last 62 years till date, have been filed along with present application.
That the DH, has acted in connivance with the Judgment Debtor,
Sudershan Bhatia, to fraudulently obtain the eviction decree dated
31/07/2023. That DH intentionally excluded the actual possessors of
the suit property, including the Objector and his family members,
from the original eviction petition, despite having full knowledge of
their long-standing possession. That in furtherance of this collusion,
Amna Khatoon has also submitted an affidavit purportedly from
Sudarshan Bhatia before this honorable court, which falsely claims
that the Objector's family members had settled with Sudarshan Bhatia
and agreed to vacate the property. That the submission of this
affidavit, along with a purported declaration, is indicative of a close
relationship and coordinated effort between Amna Khatoon and
Sudershan Bhatia to manipulate the judicial process and secure an
unjust eviction.
1.1. It is stated that decree is binding only on parties
involved. That since the decree was specifically passed against
Sudershan Bhatia, it cannot be automatically enforced against Satya
Pal Vaish, who was not a party to the eviction suit and whose rights
were never adjudicated by the court. In this regard, reliance is placed
-- 2 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 3 of 12
upon the judgment of Brahmdeo Chaudhary Rishikesh Prasad
Jaiswal, (1997) 3 SCC 694,
1.2. It is stated that for any legal order decree to be executed
against a person, that person must have been given an opportunity to
contest the claims in court. That since Satya Pal Vaish was not given
this opportunity, executing the decree against him would violate his
right to be heard and his rights to due process. In this regard reference
is made to the judgment of Shreenath v. Rajesh, (1998) 4 SCC 543,
wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a person in posseccion of the
property who was not a party to the suit can resist the execution of the
decree.
1.3. It is submitted that principle of natural justice was not
followed. That executing the decree against Satya Pal Vaish without
him being a party to the original proceedings would violate the
principles of natural justice, specifically the principle that a person
should not be condemned without being given an opportunity to be
heard (audi alteram partem). In this regard reference is made to the
judgement of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, (1998) 3 SCC
723, wherein it was observed that a person in possession who claims
an independent right cannot be evicted based on an eviction decree
passed against another party.
-- 3 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 4 of 12
1.4. It is submitted that possession in the suit property has not
been adjudicated. That the possession and rights of Satya Pal Vaish
over the property have not been adjudicated by the court in the
original eviction proceedings. Therefore, the decree cannot extend to
dispossess him based on a judgment that did not involve him or his
rights. In this regard reference is made to the judgment of Anwarbi v.
Pramod Da (2000) 10 SCC 405. It is submitted that there was need for
separate proceedings. That if the Decree Holder wishes to evict Satya
Pal Vaish, they would need to initiate separate legal proceedings
against him, where his rights and possession would be properly
examined by the court.
1.5. It is further submitted that decree dt. 31/07/2023 was
obtained by the DH through concealment and fraud. That the DH
misrepresented the facts and manipulated the proceedings to secure
an eviction order against a person (Judgment Debtor) who had no
connection with the suit property. It is further contended that the
objector's rights have not been adjudicated. That any attempt to
execute the decree against the objector, who was not a party to the
suit, would violate his legal rights and would be a grave miscarriage
of justice.
-- 4 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 5 of 12
1.6. Lastly, it is submitted that execution against the
objector is not maintainable, as the Objector was not a party to the
original proceedings and therefore, the decree cannot be executed
against him. That the objector's possession of the suit property is
lawful and has been established through various public documents,
including voter ID cards, ration cards, birth certificates of family
members, and utility bills.
1.7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it has
been prayed that the court may stay the execution of the decree dated
31/07/2023 against the objector, that the court may declare that the
decree is not binding on the Objector and cannot be executed against
him and it is further prayed that the execution petition may be
dismissed.
2. On the other hand, in the reply filed on behalf of DH,
all the grounds raised by the objector are denied. It is stated that the
objector has no right to intervene in the present case. That it is
admitted by the objector that mother of DH namely, Mst Khazida Bi
was the owner of the property in question, who expired on 01.05.1992
lived him behind her legal heir including the DH. That the objector
has no right or interest in the said premises. That sons of applicant
namely Amit Vaish and Vinay Vaish had admitted in their reply dt.
-- 5 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 6 of 12
18.01.2023 that they were the tenant of Sudershan Bhatia and that
Sudershan Bhatia has admitted that he was the tenant of DH. All the
other averments of the objections are denied with the request to
dismiss the objections.
3. Rejoinder was also filed on behalf of objector to the
reply of the DH, wherein all the averments of the reply have been
denied. In the said rejoinder the name of sons of the objector is also
mentioned as Amit Vaish and Vinay Vaish.
4. Arguments advanced by ld. counsels of both the parties
have been heard. Again written submissions filed by both the counsels
have been also perused. In the written submission, the counsel for
objector has also mentioned certain facts regarding the purchase of
the property by the father of the objector from original landlady Smt.
Khazida Bi and also about pendencty of one civil suit filed by the
objector. However, said facts cannot be taken into consideration as
they were not mentioned in the objections and they have been simply
mentioned in the written submissions without being supported with
any affidavit.
5. Before, proceeded to the adjudication of the objections,
let me discussed in brief the relevant legal position. It is observed that
-- 6 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 7 of 12
as reflected from perusal of main file of eviction petition, said petition
was filed by DH u/S 14 (1)(e) r/w S 25 B of DRC Act and the eviction
order was passed on 31.07.2023, as the respondent / tenant failed to
file the application for leave to defend within the stipulated period of
15 days before the court. It is further observed that DRC Act is a
special law and Section 25 of the said Act deals with “ Vacant
Possession to Landlord”. For ready reference, said provision is
reproduced as follows:
Section 25. Vacant possession to landlord.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law,
where the interest of a tenant in any premises is determined
for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the
Controller under this Act for the recovery of possession of
such premises the order shall, subject to the provisions of
section 18, be binding on all persons who may be in
occupation of the premises and vacant possession thereof
shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such person
therefrom:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any
persons who has an independent title to such premises.
6. Now on perusal of said provision, it is very apparent
that it starts with a
Non-Obstante clause and accordingly said
provision over rides the other law including the CPC while dealing
with the delivery of vacant possession to the landlord after the order
-- 7 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 8 of 12
being passed by the Controller under the said Act. The proviso to the
said section provides for the objections to be raised by the persons
who have ‘ independent title’ to such premises. Accordingly, at the
very first, it is to be concluded that the objections filed by the objector
under the provision of O 21 R 97 CPC are not maintainable in the
given case and consequently, the judgments of Shreenath (Supra),
Brahamdeo Chaudhary (Supra) and Silver Line Forum (Supra) are
not applicable to the present case.
7. Going one step further, even if, the objections are taken
up for consideration u/S 25 of DRC Act, it is to observe that as
mentioned above, the objections can be filed by the objector u/S 25, if
he has an ‘independent title’ in the tenanted premises. Now, on
perusal of entire objections, it is reflected that no single word has been
mentioned by the objector in what capacity the objector was having
its possession in the tenanted premises. Nothing is mentioned if the
status of the objector was of the owner / tenant / licensee or mortgagee
and therefore, the objector has failed even to plead what was his title
in the subject premises. Again, though the objector has filed several
documents to show the length of his possession in the subject
premises, however, has not filed even a single document to show the
nature of his possession in the subject premises.
-- 8 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 9 of 12
8. On the other hand, the DH has also placed on record the
copy of undertaking / declaration given by Sudershan Bhatia, who
was the respondent in the eviction petition, to the effect that he was
the tenant of the petitioner and that he could not file the application
for leave to defend and accordingly, eviction order dt. 31.07.2023 was
passed against him and thereafter matter was amicably settled and his
counsel had withdrawn the application for setting aside the said
eviction order. It was also stated that Amit Vaish and Vinay Vaish
were residing in the tenanted premises, however, they had no right in
the said premises.
9. Accordingly, it is very clear that the objector has
completely failed to disclose his ‘independent title’ in the subject
premises and therefore, the said objections are also not maintainable
u/S 25 of DRC Act.
10. It is further observed that as the objector was not the
tenant of the petitioner / DH, there was no requirement of his
impleadment in the eviction petition. As reflected from the eviction
petition itself, the petitioner has mentioned SH. Amit Vaish and Vinay
Vaish being the sub-tenants of the respondent in the subject premises,
however, even their impleadment was not necessary. It is further
observed that nonjoinder of subtenants would not make the eviction
-- 9 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 10 of 12
decree nullity or inexecutable against the subtenant; and thatby a
unilateral action of the tenant of surrendering his tenancy in
favour of a third party by delivering possession of the tenanted
premises, no new tenancy is created which may legally bind the
landlord. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of Prem
Raj Chaudhary vs R.C. Ohri, 191 (2012) DLT 292, Vidyawanti vs
Takan Dass, 1974 RCR 47; Chhotey vs Mohd. Yasin, 1977 RLR 484
and H. Seshadri vs K.R. Nataranjan, 2003 (3) SCR 505.
11. It is further observed that mere possession of the
tenanted premises, howsoever long would neither lend any legitimacy
nor confer any rights upon the person raising objection to the eviction
order. It is observed that in case of Rattan Devi vs. Bal Kishan,
14(1978) DLT 183, the landlady Rattan Devi obtained eviction order
against the respondent Bal Kishan and in execution thereof, co-
respondent Parmeshwari Das was thrown out of the subject property.
Application was filed by Parmeshwari Das for restoration of
possession on the ground that Rattan Devi had obtained eviction order
in collusion with Bal Kishan Das. The Rent Controller allowed the
application and directed restoration of possession to Parmeshwari
Das. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Rent Control
Tribunal, so Rattan Devi filed second appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi
-- 10 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 11 of 12
High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere possession
could not save Parmeshwari Das from eviction in view of Section 25
of the Act since any person found in possession of the premises, in
respect of which the interest of the tenant has been determined and
recovery of possession in favour of landlord has been made has to be
thrown out unless the person in possession can show an independent
title to such premises.
12. Similar observation was made by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in the case of Sh. Praful Kumar Shahi Vs. B D Dhavan and
Ors dt. 02.07.2012 in CM(M) 732/2012.
13. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is to be concluded
that none of the grounds raised by objector are tenable to conclude
that execution petition is not maintainable. As discussed above, as the
objector was not a tenant, he was not required to be impleaded and at
the same time he has no right to contest and accordingly no question
arises for any opportunity to be heard to be given to the objector.
Again I also do not find any ground to conclude that eviction order
was passed through fraud, as the petitioner had duly mentioned the
names of Amit Vaish and Vinay Vaish, the sons or relatives of the
objector as being the sub-tenants in the subject premises.
-- 11 of 12 --
Ex. No. 244/2024
AMNA KHATOON VS. SUDERSHAN
BHATIA
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
12.11.2025
Page no. 12 of 12
14. Accordingly, the objections filed by the objector Sh.
Satyapal Vaish are hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC)
(Previously posted as ARC-02, Central)
Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/12.11.2025
Note: This order contains 12 pages and all the pages have been
checked and signed by me.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC)
(Previously posted as ARC-02, Central)
Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/12.11.2025
-- 12 of 12 --