Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2009 INSC 652
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2009 INSC 652
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent–landlord filed an eviction petition in 1981 against the appellant–tenant concerning Premises No. 13/46, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The Rent Controller decreed eviction on 12-5-1993 on the ground of sub-letting. The appellant pursued a prolonged sequence of challenges: an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal (dismissed 22-9-1998), a second appeal to the Delhi High Court (dismissed 31-1-2000), a special leave petition (SLP) to the Supreme Court (withdrawn 8-12-2000), and a review petition before the High Court (dismissed 9-2-2001). A further SLP was dismissed on 9-4-2001 with a direction to vacate by 31-10-2001, which the appellant ignored by failing to file the required undertaking.

Subsequently, during execution, the appellant filed successive objections—16-3-2001 (rejected 14-9-2001), 8-11-2001 (rejected 5-7-2002)—followed by appeals to the Rent Control Tribunal (dismissed 20-7-2002) and the Delhi High Court (dismissed 10-9-2002). The present appeal challenges the High Court’s order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the portion still occupied by the appellant (described as the third floor/Flat No. 14-A) is part of the tenanted premises covered by the 1993 eviction decree.
  2. Whether the appellant’s repeated objections and appeals constitute an abuse of the court’s process warranting dismissal with costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The eviction decree applied only to the second floor; the appellant had already delivered possession of that portion.
  • The third floor/Flat No. 14-A is an independent premises for which no eviction order exists.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court concurred with the Rent Control Tribunal’s factual finding—affirmed by the High Court—that Flat No. 14-A is part of the original tenanted premises. Treating this as a pure question of fact, it held that the High Court correctly declined to re-examine the issue in second appeal.

After outlining the extensive litigation history, the Court characterised the appellant’s successive objections and appeals as “frivolous” and “a flagrant abuse of the process of the court.” It stressed that such conduct undermines the finality of judgments and has become a “widespread malady” that cannot be tolerated.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed with Costs. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant, payable to the respondent within two months. The appellant must hand over possession of the remaining premises within three months; failing that, eviction shall be enforced with police assistance.

Implications: The decision reinforces the judiciary’s intolerance for repetitive, meritless litigation intended to delay execution of valid decrees. While it sets no new doctrinal precedent, it signals that litigants abusing process may face monetary sanctions and expedited enforcement.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Sardar Estates v. Atma Ram Properties Private Limited .

    Order

    1. 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.

    2. The respondent, which is the owner and landlord of 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 sub-letting.

    3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which 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 an order dated 8-12-2000. He then filed a review petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 9-2-2001.

    4. Against the order dated 9-2-2001 the appellant filed another SLP in this Court which was dismissed on 9-4-2001. By that order he was directed to vacate the premises and hand over physical possession to the landlord on or before 31-10-2001 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed within four weeks. However, the appellant did not file the undertaking.

    5. 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. 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 which was dismissed on 10-9-2002 by the impugned judgment. Thereafter he filed the present appeal before us.

    6. It was submitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the eviction decree was passed in respect of the second floor of the property in question, and possession of the second floor had been handed over to the landlord in pursuance of the eviction decree, but the 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 that some unauthorised 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 unauthorised construction cannot be said to be an independent flat.

    7. Before the Rent Control Tribunal it had been submitted by the appellant that the premises which is still in his possession is Flat No. 14-A 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 No. 14-A is a part of the tenanted premises and not a separate accommodation. The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that this is a question of fact and cannot be gone into in second appeal. We agree with this view taken by the High Court.

    8. It is evident that frivolous objections have been filed in the execution case which is an abuse of the process of the court and a flagrant violation of the eviction decree against the appellant against which appeals had been rejected and even SLP in this Court was dismissed.

    9. It is evident that after the first round of litigation was over the tenant started a second round of litigation on frivolous grounds which was a flagrant abuse of the process of the court. This is a practice which has become widespread, and which the Court cannot approve of, otherwise no judgment will ever attain finality. Hence, we dismiss this appeal and impose a cost of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) on the appellant which shall be paid to the respondent within two months from today. The appellant shall also hand over the premises in question, which is in his possession, to the landlord within three months from today failing which he will be evicted by police force.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Sardar Estates v. Atma Ram Properties Private Limited .
    (Apr 30, 2009)