TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted perhaps the gravest blunder of her life of letting out the suit property to the respondent-tenant at a monthly rent of ₹ 1300/-, which subsequently came to be increased to ₹ 1500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1990. The tenancy was for residential purpose. The appellant filed a petition for eviction of the respondent by invoking section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act'). This petition was filed by late R.S. Gupta, husband of the appellant No.1 before us, who was also a co-petitioner in the said eviction petition. The ground put forward in the eviction petition was that the family of the appellant had expanded and there was bona fide requirement for personal use. This eviction petition was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepted the finding on the merits that the grounds for eviction had been made out. The respondent moved a special leave petition before this Court, S.L.P.(C) No.7234/99, challenging the judgment of the High Court. This special leave petition was summarily dismissed by this Court on 21.6.1999. Despite his failure in all courts, the respondent did not hand over possession. The appellant filed an execution petition on 11.8.1999 for execution of the decree for possession. The respondent raised all kinds of frivolous objections including the objection that DRC Act was not applicable to the area in question; that the sale deed under which the first appellant claimed the ownership was a fraudulent document and could not be made the basis of evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. An appeal by the respondent, MCA No.5/2000, against this order was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, on 12.1.2000. The order of the appellate court was challenged by Revision No.CR 73 of 2000 before the High Court of Delhi. The said Revision application was also dismissed in limine on January 20, 2000. The respondent then moved an application for review of the order dated 20.12.1999 before the Civil Judge at Delhi. The court finding no substance in the application rejected the same. Having found no leg to stand upon in any court of law, the respondent filed a second objection petition in the execution proceedings reiterating the very same objections as raised before, with the additional groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C. In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar and another a two Judge Bench of this Court observed: "Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debtors to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system." In our view these observations aptly apply to the case before us. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rajendra Singh and others to contend that there was a fraud played upon ....