Synopsis

This judgment arises from a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Rent Control Officer (RCO) who had rejected the petitioner’s objection to the execution of an eviction decree. The eviction decree was originally passed by the High Court in 2011 in a revision arising from a 1992 eviction proceeding. The petitioner, a complete stranger to the original tenancy, claimed to have entered into possession based on an oral assurance from the tenant that the property would be sold to him. After a decade of delay in execution, the petitioner initiated multiple proceedings, made false statements on oath, and suppressed material facts. The High Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs, directed immediate execution of the possession warrant, and emphasized that courts will not permit abuse of process by litigants with “soiled hands.”

Writ Petition No. 11469 of 2024

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
Coram: Ajit B. Kade thankar, J.
Date of Judgment: March 30, 2026
Core Law: Rent Control, Execution of Decree, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law (Article 227)

2. Legal Framework

• Constitution of India: Article 227 – supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate courts and tribunals.

• Rent Control Law: The Hyderabad Rent Control Act (applicable to the area) – Sections 12(2)(1), 15(b)(iii), 19(3) (eviction on grounds of default, etc.).

• Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order XXI (execution of decrees); principles governing execution, including the maxim executio est finis et fructus legis (execution is the end and fruit of the law).

• Law of Evidence & Equity: Doctrine of “clean hands”; maxims nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no one can take advantage of his own wrong) and fraus et j

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.