Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mender Singh And Another vs Chander Bhan Bansal And Others on 29 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No. 5936 of 2013 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CR No. 5936 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.01.2014
Mender Singh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Chander Bhan Bansal and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma-1,Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Arun Jain,Senior Advocate with
Mr.Arnab Sood,Advocate for the respondents.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners by way of this petition have challenged the order dated 19.9.2013 (Annexure P6) whereby the Rent Controller had dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioners .
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Respondent No.1-Chander Bhan Bansal had filed ejectment petition against respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The case of the respondent No.1 was that the tenanted premises in question were let out to him by Daljit Kaur at the rate of `2000/- per month. Daljit Kaur left the premises in question (portion of basement) including the tenanted premises. Now, the premises in question were owned by the petitioners. Vide lease deed dated 7.7.2001, Raj Kumari 2014.02.05 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5936 of 2013 (O&M) 2 respondent No.1 had been given the right by the owner to sublet the premises in question. The premises in question had been let out by respondent No.1 to respondents No. 2 and 3. Hence, the ejectment of respondents No. 2 and 3 from the premises in question was sought by respondent No.1 The said ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure P3). During the execution proceedings, petitioners filed the objection petition claiming that being the owners of the premises in question, the possession of the demised premises was liable to be handed over to them and the execution application filed by respondent No.1 was liable to be dismissed.
Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 19.9.2013 (Annexure P6) dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the execution petition had been filed seeking execution of the order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure P3) passed in favour of respondent No.1 by the Rent Controller ordering ejectment of respondents No. 2 and 3. Even if JDs had handed over possession to any other person, the said act of the JDs was not legally sustainable. Hence, objection petition was dismissed.
Admittedly, the demised premises had been taken on rent by Chander Bhan Bansal vide the rent note. Admittedly, Chander Bhan Bansal had been allowed to use the entire tenanted premises himself or sublet the same. Chander Bhan Bansal, who had been allowed to sublet the premises, had, thereafter, inducted respondents No. 2 and 3 as tenants in the demised premises. So far as sub- Raj Kumari tenants are concerned, Chander Bhan Bansal became their landlord. 2014.02.05 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5936 of 2013 (O&M) 3 In ejectment petition filed by Chander Bhan Bansal-respondent No.1, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the sub tenants- respondents No. 2 and 3. Although, the sub-tenants handed over the keys to the owners but respondent No.1 was liable to get possession of the tenanted premises in view of the ejectment order passed in his favour.
During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the petitioners have filed the ejectment petition against respondent No.1. The said petition is still pending. Petitioners have, thus, already taken recourse to law by filing the ejectment petition against respondent No.1. However, so far as objection petition filed by the petitioners is concerned, the same was liable to be dismissed as Chander Bhan Bansal was entitled to get the possession of the property in question from the sub-tenants in pursuance to the ejectment order passed in his favour. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 29, 2014 arya Raj Kumari 2014.02.05 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document