IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6954 OF 2003

Sardar Estates ..    Appellant

-vs-

Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. .. Respondent

O R D E R

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.

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  

subletting.  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order he filed an SLP in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn by  

order dated 8.12.2000.  He then filed a Review Petition before the Delhi

2

High  Court  which  was  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  order  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 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withdrawn on 1.11.2001.  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.

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 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.

3

The High Court has dealt with this aspect and has observed 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.   

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  no.14A 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.

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.   

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  Court.   This  is  a  practice  which  has  become

4

widespread, and which the Court cannot approve off, 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.  

………………………….J. (Markandey Katju)

………………………….J. (H.L. Dattu)

New Delhi; April 30, 2009