Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Cane Furniture And Another vs Jagdeep Kaur on 3 July, 2012
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Civil Revision No. 3759 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3759 of 2012
Date of decision : 03.07.2012
M/s Cane Furniture and another
....Petitioners
V/s
Jagdeep Kaur
....Respondent
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Neel Kamal Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
Petitioners who are tenants in a commercial building situated at Pakhowal road, Ludhiana have preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated November 30, 2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by executing court dismissing the objections raised before it.
Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petition under section 13-B of the Act was preferred by Makhan Singh Grewal, an NRI. His plea was accepted by the Rent Controller on February 20, 2007 and ejectment order was passed. Petitioners impugned the same by way of revision petition but remained unsuccessful. C.R. No. 1953 of 2007 was dismissed vide order dated December 21, 2010. Makhan Singh Grewal (decree holder) died on July 22, 2011. Execution was preferred by wife of Makhan Singh Grewal on 17.11.2011. According to him, on death of Makhan Singh, the eviction order has become unexecutable as same was under section 13-B of Act. Civil Revision No. 3759 of 2012 2 This question was raised before the court below also but it passed the impugned order without discussing the issue.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It is evident that originally petition under section 13-B of the Act was preferred by owner of the property on the plea that he was an NRI and had returned to India. He wanted to settle here to carry on business of sale/purchase of vintage cars. For this he wanted to open a showroom. An application was filed seeking leave to defend the ejectment petition. Same was dismissed on April 30, 2003. Petitioners/tenants preferred a revision petition before this court which was allowed vide order dated December 16, 2003. Case proceeded before Rent Controller. On February 20, 2007, an ejectment order was passed. Same was unsuccessfully challenged before this court. Makhan Singh Grewal in whose favour ejectment order was passed died on July 12, 2011. His widow Jagdeep Kaur filed the execution petition claiming to be the sole heir on the basis of Will. The tenants moved an objection petition before executing court claiming that decree had become unexecutable on the death of Makhan Singh Grewal. The decree holder had sought ejectment on the specific ground. With his death said ground no longer survived. Application for execution by his wife was not maintainable as she was residing abroad. The objection petition was, however, dismissed on 15.06.2012 by the court below. It directed execution of warrants by breaking open the lock. Aggrieved, tenants have filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel has, however, contended that order whereby objections of tenants were dismissed is cryptic. No reason has been assigned for dismissing the same. Civil Revision No. 3759 of 2012 3
After considering the contentions raised before me, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition. Though section 13-B is a special provision enacted by legislature enabling an NRI to seek eviction from his property on his return to India, primarily it is ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. Once a landlord succeeds in this effort and the decree becomes final it cannot be said at the stage of execution that the decree becomes unexecutable on death of the decree holder. It is inexplicable how death of the decree holder would stand in the way of his legal heirs to execute the same. In fact it may be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of executing court to go behind the decree and examine whether death of the landlord had created such circumstances that tenancy would revive thereby vesting fresh rights in the tenant, though same stood extinguished on the basis of ejectment order which attained finality. In my considered view, such an interpretation of law would be unacceptable. As regards statement of learned counsel regarding the impugned order being cryptic, I find no substance in the same. A perusal of the order shows that objection preferred by tenants have been duly considered by the court below. There appears to be an effort by the tenant to prolong the litigation and to avoid execution of the ejectment order by raising one objection or the other.
I thus find no merit in this petition. Same is hereby dismissed.
July 03, 2012 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE