Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejvir Singh vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 3 December, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.8172 OF 2014 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 3rd DECEMBER, 2014
Tejvir Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kumar & another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
****
Present : Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SURINDER GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. This revision petition has been filed against order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.B.S. Nagar on the objection petition filed by the revision petitioner.
2. Briefly stated, Jagjit Singh, father of the objector had taken a shop on rent from Sumitra Devi vide rent note dated 28.10.1983. Rent note was executed by M/s. Jagjit Singh and sons through Jagjit Singh. In the year 1996 an ejectment petition was filed by Raj Kumar as owner/landlord of the disputed premises and vide order dated 27.01.2001 the same was allowed and the tenant Jagjit Singh was directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no appeal against this order was filed and it became final.
CR NO.8172 OF 2014 (O&M) -2-
4. A suit was filed by Phulwant Kaur mother of Jagjit Singh bearing Civil Suit No.517/2005 instituted on 05.06.2002 claiming herself to be tenant under Raj Kumar which was dismissed vide judgment of Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Nawanshahar dated 09.01.2007. The appeal against that judgment was also dismissed.
5. Thereafter Phulwant Kaur filed objections before the executing Court alleging her possession over half portion of the shop on the Western side. It was alleged that possession of portion of the shop on Eastern side had already been handed over by Jajgit Singh to the landlord. She sought framing of issues to this effect, taking of evidence and deciding the right of the objector.
6. Tejvir Singh revision petitioner in his separate objections took the plea that he along with his brother Gurvinder Singh and grandmother Phulwant Kaur were allowed to do work of confectioner on one side of the shop in question and rent note was executed by Sumitra Devi in favour of Jagjit Singh and sons. Due to his ill health Jagjit Singh left working in the shop and objector started working under the name of Dolphin Courier Service. Before the Rent Controller they were not party, as such, order of the Rent Controller is not binding on them. The Executing Court dismissed the execution petition with the observation that the rent note was executed by Jagjit Singh, as such, he was tenant in possession of the suit property and the objectors were not necessary party in the rent petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. CR NO.8172 OF 2014 (O&M) -3-
8. It has been argued that the Executing Court has dismissed the objection petition without framing issue and recording evidence with regard to the plea raised by the objectors. On perusal of the paper book I find that the objections filed by the revision petitioner and this revision petition is a balatant misuse of the process of Court by the objectors, who have been putting the order of ejectment passed against Jagjit Singh on hold for the last more than 13 years by indulging in one or other type of litigation with the landlord. Jagjit Singh father of the revision petitioner had taken the shop in question on rent for his business which he was running in the name of Jagjit Singh and sons. Neither of the family member was a necessary party to be impleaded in the ejectment petition filed by landlord. There is no document on the file that Jagjit Singh and sons was partnership firm and the objector had any concern with the same.
9. The mere facts that the objector as son of tenant was allowed to do his courier business in the shop by the tenant or mother of Jagjit Singh is also sitting in the shop, are no reason to confer them any right over the suit property.
10. Appraisal of submissions of learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusal of impugned order and the paper book lead to an unassailable conclusion that this objection petition is result of connivance of Jagjit Singh-tenant with his family members. The Rent Controller has already given a finding which attained finality that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent no.1 and Jagjit Singh, which have CR NO.8172 OF 2014 (O&M) -4- not been assailed so far. The Executing Court declined to frame any issue on the objections filed by the revision petitioner and Phulwant Kaur and observed that due to the connivance of the objectors, the decree-holder is being deprived of the fruit of decree and has been made to contest two rounds of litigation.
11. This revision petition has no merits. Dismissed.
12. Executing Court is directed to proceed in the execution expeditiously and dispose of the same within three months.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the Executing Court.
3rd December, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA)
'raj' JUDGE
RAJ KUMAR
2014.12.09 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh