Delhi High Court
Shahbuddin vs Mohd. Akhlaq on 8 September, 2009
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
E.F.A. No.6/2009 & CM No.8614/2009
% Judgment reserved on: 1st September, 2009
Judgment delivered on: 8th September, 2009
Shahbuddin
S/o. Shri Nazruddin
Shop in property No.104-D
Gali No.10, Zakir Nagar,
Okhla, New Delhi. ....Appellant.
Through: Mr. Kamran Malik with
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed and
Mrs. Nagma Imtiaz,
Advs.
Versus
Mohd. Akhlaq
S/o. Mohd. Ashfaq
R/o. 2187, Gali Nal Wali
Pahari Bhojla,
Chitli Qabar, Jama Masjid
Delhi-110006 ....Respondent.
Through: Nemo.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
EFA No.6/2009 & CM No.8614/2009 Page 1 of 6
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
This appeal is filed against judgment dated 5th
June, 2009 of Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide
which objections filed by appellant were dismissed.
2. Brief facts are that, in Year 2003, respondent
herein, the owner-landlord of property No.104-D, Gali
No.10, Zakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, filed suit for
possession of one shop on the ground floor which was
let out to the appellant herein, and also for recovery of
Rs.1,66,000/- as arrears of rent and damages.
3. The suit was contested by present appellant,
which was decreed in favour of respondent. Decree for
sum of Rs.1,62,000/- on account of arrears of rent was
passed in favour of respondent, and appellant was
further directed to pay damages for unauthorized use
and occupation of the shop, till he handed over the
vacant possession.
4. Appellant filed appeal (No. RFA 92 of 2007) in
this Court. Along with it, application for stay was also
filed, on which following order was passed on 29th
March, 2007;
"The appellant shall pay the entire arrears
of rent/damages/mesne profits to the
respondent in the present appeal within
one month from today and would
continue to pay month to month
rent/damages/mesne profits to the
respondent as per the computation in the
decree under appeal. Subject to
compliance of this condition, the appellant
will not be dispossessed from the premises
in question."
5. Thereafter, appellant filed an application seeking
permission to deposit admitted rent @ Rs.500/- p.m.
On 27th April, 2007, this Court ordered that this
application would be considered at appropriate stage
and in the meantime appellant was directed to comply
with order dated 29th March, 2007.
6. Appellant filed Special Leave Petition in Supreme
Court against order dated 27th April, 2007, which was
dismissed.
7. Later on, appeal (No. RFA 92 of 2007) was
dismissed in default for non-prosecution, which has
since been restored.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant
that trial court wrongly allowed execution application
since no site plan of the property was filed.
9. It is also contended that respondent obtained the
judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2006 by
causing misrepresentation and suppression of material
facts and has played fraud upon appellant.
10. Present appeal of appellant is most bogus and
frivolous one. It is nothing but an abuse of the process
of law. Decree for possession/damages was passed in
the year 2006, but till date, appellant has neither
vacated the premises nor is paying any rent/damages
to the respondent/landlord, in spite of order dated 29th
March, 2007. Appellant is enjoying the property,
without paying even single penny.
11. Coming to the plea of the appellant that, no site
plan was filed along with execution application, it is
falsified from the findings given by trial court. In
impugned order it is held;
"An application under Section 151 read
with Section 153 CPC dated 24th August,
2007, moved by DH for issue of warrants
of possession as per the site plan filed
along with application. The application
has been contested by JD by filing a reply.
However, no site plan has been filed by
the JD despite sufficient opportunities nor
the JD or his counsel has appeared since
morning on repeated calls."
12. Thus, appellant has made false averments in the
present appeal that, execution application did not
accompany the site plan.
13. Besides this, no other objection was taken by the
appellant before trial court.
14. Hence, there is absolutely no merit in this appeal
which is devoid of any legal force. This appeal is most
frivolous, bogus one and has been filed just to deprive
the landlord of the fruits of his decree. Such type of
frivolous appeal deserves to be dismissed with heavy
costs. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed
with costs of Rs.25,000/-.
15. Costs be deposited in the name of Registrar
General of this Court, within one month from today.
+ CM No.8614/2009
*
16. Dismissed.
17. List for compliance on 12th October, 2009.
8th September, 2009 V.B.GUPTA, J.
rb
