SARDAR ESTATES versus ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 30-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 340 
A 
SARDAR ESTATES 
;~ 
V. 
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. 
Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 2003 
" 
B 
APRIL 30, 2009 
(MARKANDEY KATJU AND H.L. DATTU, JJ ) 
Administration of Justice: 
Abuse of process of court/vexatious litigation - Tenant 
c having suffered a decree of eviction consistently right from 
Rent Controller upto Supreme Court and fifing objections in 
execution case, again pursued the matter up to Supreme Court 
- HELD: It is evident that frivolous objections have been filed 
in execution case which is an abuse of the proce~s of court 
and a flagrant violation of eviction decree against the tenant-
D This is a practice which has become widespread, and which 
the Court cannot approve of, otherwise no judgment will ever 
• 
attain finality - Appeal dismissed -
Cost of Rs. 10, 0001-
imposed on tenant which shall be paid to landlord- Rent 
control and Eviction. 
E 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6954 
of 2003 
From the Judgement and Order dated 10.09.2002 of the 
~A 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in S.A.O. No. 26 of 2002 
F 
Ranjit Kumar, Rajiv K. Garg, Annam D. N. Rao, with him, 
for the Appellant(s). 
Amit Sethi, Ajay Kr. Jha, Bina Madhavan, RuchiAggarwal, 
Shwetanik Sovlakwah, Parekh & Co., for the Respondent(s). 
G 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
This appeal furnishes a typical instance of a widespread 
"'~ 
malady which has infected the judicial system in the country, 
namely, the flagrant abuse of the process of the Court. 
H 
340 
SARDAR ESTATES V. 
341 
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. 
r 
4 
The respondent, which is the owner and landlord of A 
premises no.13/46, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New 
Delhi filed an eviction petition against the appellant, who is the 
tenant, before the Rent Controller; Delhi in 1981. That petition 
was decreed on 12.5.1993 on the ground of subletting. The 
appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which 
B 
was dismissed on 22.9.1998. Thereafter he filed a second 
appeal which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 
31.1.2000. Against that order he filed an SLP in this Court which 
was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 8.12.2000. He then 
; 
filed a Review Petition before the Delhi High Court which was c 
dismissed on 9.2.2001. Against that order the appellant filed 
another SLP in this Court which was dismissed on 9.4.2001. 
By that otder he was directed to vacate the premises and 
handed over physical possession to the landlord on or before 
31.10.2001 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed within D 
~ 
four weeks. However, the appellant did not file the undertaking. 
In execution proceedings the appellant filed an objection 
on 16.3.2001 which was rejected by the Executing Court on 
14.9.2001. Against the order dated 14.9.2001 the appellant filed 
an appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.11.2001. 
E 
He filed a fresh objection on 8.11.2001 before the Executing 
Court which was rejected on 5.7.2002. Against that order he 
. .,.._. 
filed a First Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was 
dismissed on 20. 7 .2002. Against the order of the Rent Control 
Tribunal he filed a Second Appeal before the Delhi High Court 
F 
which was dismissed on 10.9.2002 by the impugned judgment. 
Thereafter he filed the present appeal before us. 
It was submitted before us by the learned counsel for the 
appellant that the eviction decree was in respect of the second 
floor of the property in question, and possession of the second G 
~ 
floor had been handed over to the landlord in pursuance of the 
eviction decree, butthe third floor was an independent premises 
for which no order of eviction had been passed. 
The High Court has dealt with this aspect and has observed 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A that some unauthorized construction had been made by the 
)". 
appellant on the open area above the second floor of premises 
no.13/46, Scindia House, New Delhi and this unauthorized 
construction cannot be said to be an independent flat. 
B 
Before the Rent Control Tribunal it had been submitted by 
the appellant that the premises which is still in his possession 
is flat no.14A which is not a part of premises no.13/46, Scindia 
House, New Delhi. However, this plea had been negatived by 
the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 20.7.2002 after a 
detailed discussion. It was observed in the said order that flat 
c no.14A is a part of the tenanted premises and not a separate 
accom

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.