Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar vs Sunita Rani on 14 January, 2009
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Civil Revision No.6485 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6485 of 2007
Date of Decision:14.01.2009
Krishan Kumar
....petitioner
Versus
Sunita Rani
.....respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr.R.K.Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent
****
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.
Vide order dated 01.09.2007 the Executing Court in execution of the ejectment order dated 13.06.2003 passed in favour of the respondent stayed the execution proceedings against the petitioner subject to payment of entire arrears of rent by the JD up to date within 15 days and posted the matter for 17.09.2007.
The petitioner filed review of the aforesaid order dated 01.09.2007 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.11.2007.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders being illegal and arbitrary inter alia alleging therein that petitioner is the owner of the house in dispute and had never executed any power of attorney on the basis of which documents i.e.agreement to sell, sale deed and rent deed have been executed by the Civil Revision No.6485 of 2007 2 alleged power of attorney Kashmiri Lal in favour of his wife Sunita Rani- respondent and all the aforesaid documents are forged and fabricated and result of fraud. Since the petitioner is owner of the house in dispute, therefore, there is no question of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and as such the question of payment of any rent or arrears of rent does not arise. It has been further alleged that the respondent on the basis of aforesaid forged and fabricated rent deed filed the ejectment application and got passed an ex parte ejectment order dated 13.06.2003 in her favour. The petitioner on receiving the notice of the execution application came to know about the ex parte order/decree dated 13.06.2003 and on enquiry the fraud played with him came to his notice and thereupon he lodged an FIR against the respondent and her husband. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte order/decree dated 13.06.2003, which is still pending. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above the condition imposed by the Executing Court for grant of stay subject to deposit of the arrears of rent within 15 days is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no merit in this petition. Admittedly, ejectment order has been passed against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and the petitioner is in arrears of rent since 01.01.2000. The said ejectment order has not been set aside so far. It is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Rent deed which is an outcome of fabrication or fraud, will be decided at an appropriate stage by the competent Court. One more fact which goes against the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that petitioner has stated that husband of the respondent had forged sale deed dated 27.08.1999 of the house in question in favour of his wife on the basis of forged power of attorney alleged to be executed by him, yet the Civil Revision No.6485 of 2007 3 aforesaid sale deed has not been challenged by the petitioner till date.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned orders dated 01.09.2007 and 12.11.2007 passed by the Executing Courts.
Thus, I find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 14.01.2009 neenu