C.R.P./290/2026 of SHIV LAL Vs SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA on 24 September 2026

O R D E R

%

24.09.2026

1. This petition has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 22nd August 2026 passed by Rent Controller, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Execution Petition No. 76/2025. Petitioner/Judgment Debtor has preferred this petition against the rejection of their objections under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) in the Execution Petition. Execution Petition had been filed by respondent/Decree Holder against petitioner/Judgment Debtor qua Shop No. 2, Property No. A-199, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 (‘subject property’), praying that warrants of possession be issued.

2. The decree was passed on 22nd May 2024 after the application filed by petitioner/Judgment Debtor seeking leave to defend was rejected against the suit filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Against the said decree dated 22nd May 2024, a challenge was preferred before the Coordinate Bench of this Court by way of a Revision Petition in RC.REV. 335/2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty had been sought to file proceedings before the Civil Court in accordance with law.

3. Counsel for petitioner/Judgment Debtor states that they had subsequently filed proceedings in CS SCJ No. 478/2025. On a query by the Court, he clarified that no stay order has been passed or that an appeal had been filed against the said order. The only challenge which has been presented by petitioner/Judgment Debtor is that the title of respondent/Decree Holder is itself in question on account of having been excluded under the Will of Smt. Shanti Devi, who was the widow of late Shri Gian Chandra Sharma.

4. However, counsel for petitioner/Judgment Debtor states that this Will had subsequently come to light when the Revision Petition had been filed.

5. In the opinion of this Court, petitioner/Judgment Debtor cannot assert a better title in the property than a landlord, whoever that might be. A tenant in the property anyways is estopped from denying the title of a landlord, as per Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

6. As regards devolution under the said Will, the same may be a matter between respondent/Decree Holder and his brothers.

7. Counsel for respondent/Decree Holder states that he has not stated that he is sole owner of the property and, in fact, stated he is co-owner of the subject property, along with his brother, Sh. Avinash Chandra Sharma, who was also mentioned in the Will.

8. Moreover, a perusal of the order dated 22nd May 2024, whereby, the application for leave to defend was dismissed, has also assessed the pleas raised by petitioner/Judgment Debtor. The Civil Judge has dealt with the issue of dispute of ownership of the desired premises in paragraph no.13, noting that no substantive document has been filed by petitioner/Judgment Debtor.

9. There is no irregularity in the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objections. Moreover, in these circumstances, the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree which has been passed.

10. Accordingly, in view of the above, the petition is not merited and, therefore, stands dismissed.

11. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/ak/sp