Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh And Another vs Murti Shri Dwarka Dheeshji Maharaj & ... on 30 March, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
ESA No.15 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
EXECUTION SECOND APPEAL NO.15 OF 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 30th MARCH, 2012
Amarjit Singh and another
.... Appellants
Versus
Murti Shri Dwarka Dheeshji Maharaj & others
.... Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
****
PRESENT: Mr. C. L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
****
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.4093-C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
ESA No.15 of 2012 Amarjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh objectors, having failed in both the courts below, have approached this Court by way of instant execution second appeal.
Respondent No.1-Murti Shri Dwarka Dheeshji Maharaj managed by Gagar Mal Trust filed ejectment petition in the year 1973 against proforma respondents No.2 to 9 as tenants/sub-tenants. The said ejectment petition was allowed by Rent Controller vide ejectment order dated 10.05.1977. The said order attained finality with decision of civil revision by this Court in the year 2000. Thereupon respondent No.1 filed execution petition for execution of the ejectment order.
Appellants herein filed objections in the execution petition alleging that they are not party to the ejectment order sought to be executed and are, ESA No.15 of 2012 (O&M) -2- therefore, not bound by the ejectment order. It was also alleged that objectors were already in possession of portion of the building as tenants directly under respondent No.1. Out of their tenancy portion, objectors surrendered possession of two rooms to respondent No.1-decree holder and were left with possession of a shop and a godown in their tenancy. The objectors alleged that they cannot be dispossessed therefrom in execution of the ejectment order being directly tenants of respondent No.1-decree holder. It was also pleaded that Dwarka Dass, President of respondent No.1, vide writing dated 03.06.1993 asked Deepak Arora, Secretary of respondent No.1 to accept rent from objectors @ Rs.1,000/- per month for the shop and the godown in the possession of the objectors and accordingly objectors have been paying the said rent to Deepak Arora.
Respondent No.1-decree holder resisted the objections and denied averments of the objectors. It was pleaded that Dwarka Dass was not President of respondent No.1. Deepak Arora was Secretary of respondent No.1, but he was removed from the said post. Alleged tenancy of objectors was denied. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide order dated 02.01.2012 dismissed the objections filed by appellants herein. Appeal against the said order filed by objectors has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar vide judgment dated 21.02.2012. Feeling still aggrieved, objectors have filed the instant execution second appeal.
I have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
Counsel for appellants contended that appellants were inducted as ESA No.15 of 2012 (O&M) -3- tenants by respondent No.1 in the disputed shop, godown and two rooms in the year 1990 and the appellants surrendered possession of the two rooms in the year 1993 and continue to be tenants in the shop and the godown and they cannot be ejected therefrom in execution of the impugned ejectment order being not party to the same and also being directly tenants under respondent No.1-decree holder.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same are completely meritless. Appellants in their objections did not even plead that they were inducted as tenants in the year 1990. In fact they did not plead as to when they were allegedly inducted as tenants in the aforesaid property. Appellants, however, alleged that Dwarka Dass alleged President of respondent No.1 vide writing dated 03.06.1993 asked Deepak Arora, Secretary of respondent No.1 to accept rent from the appellant-objectors for the disputed shop and godown and accordingly they have been paying the said rent to Deepak Arora. However, this plea of appellants has been rightly discarded by the courts below. As noticed hereinbefore, ejectment petition was filed in the year 1973 and ejectment order was passed by Rent Controller on 10.05.1977. The said ejectment order attained finality in the year 2000 with decision of civil revision by this Court. During this period, respondent No.1-decree holder never came in possession of the disputed property. Hotly contested litigation was pending between respondent No.1-decree holder and proforma respondents No.2 to 9-judgment debtors. Consequently there was no occasion for respondent No.1-decree holder to induct the appellants as tenants either in the year 1990 or in the year 1993 during the pendency of appeal/revision petition arising out of ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The whole case of appellants is per se unacceptable. Respondent No.1 was not even in possession ESA No.15 of 2012 (O&M) -4- of the property in the year 1990 or 1993 when respondent No.1 is alleged to have inducted the appellants as tenants therein. It would, therefore, become manifest that the alleged possession, if any, of the appellants over the shop and the godown in question, could have been derived from the judgment debtors and was not in any case derived from decree holder-respondent No.1. If appellants derived their possession from judgment debtors during pendency of ejectment petition or appeal or revision arising out of it, then appellants/objectors are also bound by the ejectment order.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that objections of the appellants have been rightly dismissed by both the courts below. Impugned judgments of the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity or illegality or any other error so as to call for interference in this second appeal. The appeal is thus completely meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
(L. N. MITTAL) 30.03.2012 JUDGE 'raj'