Judgment : INDERMEET KAUR, J. 1. These two petitions have impugned two different orders i.e. orders dated 02.12.2004 & 22.10.2005. Vide order dated 02.12.2004, the eviction petition filed by the landlady Ms. Ruby Singh and Ms. Abha Narain seeking eviction of the tenant Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd. had been decreed; this was an ex-parte decree of eviction passed under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Inspite of a valid service of summons, leave to defend had not been filed within the stipulated time period of 15 days; eviction decree had accordingly followed in favour of the landlady. This is the first order which has been impugned. The second order which has been impugned is the order dated 22.10.2005. The application filed by the judgment debtor (Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd.) seeking setting aside of the aforenoted ex-parte decree obtained by Ms. Ruby Singh and others had been dismissed. 2. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the vacant and physical possession of the disputed premises i.e. flat No. 25, 7th Floor, Dakshineshwar Apartment, Hailey Road, New Delhi has since been taken over by the respondent in the year 2005. Attention has also been drawn to an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.02.2011 in RFA No. 455/2001 between the same parties titled Mrs. Ruby Singh Vs. Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd. which was a first appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated11.07.2001 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff therein (Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd.) was decreed. In the first appeal, the parties had agreed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit be dismissed; it was further agreed that the appellant/Ruby Singh is the owner/landlady of the suit premises. Relevant extract of the aforenoted judgment is reproduced herein below:- “Counsel for the parties have therefore, agreed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit be dismissed. It is agreed that the appellant is the owner/landlord of the subject premises.” 3. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by Ms. Ruby Singh and Mrs. Abha Narain. This was under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA. It is agreed that the appellant is the owner/landlord of the subject premises.” 3. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by Ms. Ruby Singh and Mrs. Abha Narain. This was under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA. Contention was that the premises are required bonafide by the landladies for their own use; as noted supra, inspite of service of summons, leave to defend had not been filed within the stipulated time period of 15 days and as such the eviction petition had been decreed ex-parte. The application filed by the tenant seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree had been dismissed by the second impugned order. The averments made in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) have been perused. The foremost contention of the tenant/petitioner is that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant and the case of the decree holder is based on false facts. Contention being that the original owner of the suit property is one Mrs. Vidyawati Malka Bahadur who had informed the judgment debtor/tenant vide her letter dated 16.08.1996 that she had sold the premises to Ruby Singh and had asked the tenant to pay the rent thereupon to Ruby Singh. It is also the case of the petitioner/tenant that a suit for declaration was filed by the tenant which was decreed in her favour on 29.09.2000. Vehement contention of the petitioner before this Court is that although she has admitted in the proceeding in the RFA that the non-applicant/respondent is her landlord yet the landlord had played fraud upon the court and has not disclosed the true facts in the eviction petition which he had filed before the trial Court pursuant to which he had obtained an eviction order in her favour; for the aforenoted reason, the order is liable to be set aside as fraud vitiates all proceedings. 4. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of all force. The averments contained in the eviction petition have been perused. There has been no concealment of facts as has been contended. In the eviction petition it has clearly been disclosed that the mother of petitioner No. 2 namely Mrs. 4. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of all force. The averments contained in the eviction petition have been perused. There has been no concealment of facts as has been contended. In the eviction petition it has clearly been disclosed that the mother of petitioner No. 2 namely Mrs. Vidyawati Malka Bahadur was the original owner of the suit premises who had subsequently sold these premises to petitioner No. 1 namely Ruby Singh vide a written agreement; in fact the case of the petitioner/tenant has herself admitted that she has been informed by her erstwhile owner by a written communication that she should henceforth pay rent to Ruby Singh as Mrs. Vidyawati Malka Bahadur had sold these premises to Ruby Singh. In the RFA Court, the title and ownership of the respondent/non-applicant has also been accepted; this was on 24.02.2011; this was a consent order and is clear from the extract as noted supra. It does not now lie in the mouth of the petitioner to reagitate the same issue and argue on the premise that the non-applicant/respondent has played fraud upon the Court qua his status of ownership/landlord. This has been accepted by the petitioner in the aforenoted RFA proceedings which had culminated on 24.02.2011. 5. As noted supra, there is no other defence which has been raised by the petitioner. No other argument has been urged before this Court. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has not been served with the summons of the eviction petition; his only submission being that the ex-parte decree and judgment had been obtained by fraud. No argument has been raised upon the merits of the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. The argument only being bordered on the fact that a fraud has been played upon the Court and that there has been an active concealment by the non-applicant about his status in the eviction petition. No such concealment has been noted. It is also no in dispute that the disputed premises are in possession of the landlord/owner since the year 2005. Nothing survives in the petitions. Both the impugned orders call for no interference. 6. Both the petitions are without any merit. Dismissed.