It was submitted before us by the learned companynsel 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 numberorder of eviction had been passed.
The respondent, which is the owner and landlord of premises number13/46, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi filed an eviction petition against the appellant, who is the tenant, before the Rent Controller, Delhi in 1981.
The High Court has dealt with this aspect and has observed that some unauthorized companystruction had been made by the appellant on the open area above the second floor of premises number13/46, Scindia House, New Delhi and this unauthorized companystruction cannot be said to be an independent flat.
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.
Before the Rent Control Tribunal it had been submitted by the appellant that the premises which is still in his possession is flat number14A which is number a part of premises number13/46, Scindia House, New Delhi.
That petition was decreed on 12.5.1993 on the ground of subletting.
He then filed a Review Petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 9.2.2001.
This appeal furnishes a typical instance of a widespread malady which has infected the judicial system in the companyntry, namely, the flagrant abuse of the process of the Court.
Against the order dated 14.9.2001 the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.11.2001.
Against that order he filed an SLP in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 8.12.2000.
Thereafter he filed a second appeal which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 31.1.2000.
Against that order he filed a First Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed on 20.7.2002.
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.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed on 22.9.1998.
However, this plea had been negatived by the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 20.7.2002 after a detailed discussion.
In execution proceedings the appellant filed an objection on 16.3.2001 which was rejected by the Executing Court on 14.9.2001.
He filed a fresh objection on 8.11.2001 before the Executing Court which was rejected on 5.7.2002.
Against that order the appellant filed another SLP in this Court which was dismissed on 9.4.2001.
Thereafter he filed the present appeal before us.
However, the appellant did number file the undertaking.
