RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002 Page 1 Of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 8th May, 2009 Date of Order: May, 11 2009 + RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002 % 11.05.2009 Harish Chander Sharma ...Petitioner Through : Mr.SM Rama Chandra, Advocate Versus Birma Devi & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindroo, Advocate JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER RA 368/2008 1. This review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 25B(9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) has been made by the applicants/respondents seeking review of the order dated 10th September 2008 passed by this Court. 2. This Court vide the impugned order dated 10th September 2008 had allowed the Civil Revision Petition being 832 of 2002 filed by the non applicant (petitioner) Harish Chander Sharma and set aside the order of learned Additional Rent Controller and passed an order of eviction against the applicants. The Court gave three months’ time to the applicants to vacate the premises. In the instant review application, the petitioner has stated that the RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002 Page 2 Of 3 petitioners were entitled to six months’ time under Section 14(7) of DRC Act while the Court had granted only three months’ time. The other ground taken is that the applicants in counter affidavit had raised a plea about the decision of learned ARC in regard to the ownership of the suit property being wrong and the Court had not considered the same. 3. The ownership of the premises has been decided by learned ARC after going through the entire evidence led by the parties. The evidence has been discussed in detail taking into consideration the contentions raised by the applicants and the learned trial court came to conclusion that the landlord has duly proved the will executed by Shri Mukund Dass in favour of Shyam Dass @ Shayam Lal who was father of the non applicant in the year 1891 and the fact that Shri Mukund Dass was grandfather of the non applicant is not disputed. 4. It is contended by the applicants that Smt. Parvati Devi was the owner of the premises. Smt. Parveti Devi was never produced in the Court nor Smt. Parveti Devi at any point of time was shown to have collected rent from the petitioner or had been in possession of the premises. 5. Counsel for the non applicants also placed on record the judgment dated 26th May 1976 in Civil Revision No.300 of 1976 between one Nathu Ram and HC Sharma and HC Sharma non applicant, was shown owner of the same premises as per this petition and the ownership was never in dispute. The non applicant has also placed on record a copy of another order showing that the applicants was in the habit of filing frivolous applications just to prolong the case. RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002 Page 3 Of 3 6. I consider that the plea of applicants that the ownership of the premises was not established is baseless. This Court while considering civil revision had considered all aspects of the case. As far as granting of six months’ time is concerned, the order was passed on 10th September 2008 and the six months period expired on 9th March 2009. Thus, this ground is not now available to the petitioner. This Court had granted an interim injunction while admitting the review application only on the ground that six months time was not granted to the applicants. I find no force in this review application. The application is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. May 11, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd