Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chander vs Suresh Kumar on 21 August, 2014
CR No. 5133 of 2014 1
..
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 5133 of 2014 [O&M]
Date of Decision : August 21st, 2014
Subhash Chander .... Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Kumar .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Dr. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J.
Judgment dated 17.2.2011 [Annexure P/11] filed with CM No. 16781-CII of 2014 is taken on record. Application stands disposed of. Main Petition
2. Rent Controller, Bhiwani, vide order dated 3.8.2009 [Annexure P/1] had ordered ejectment of the petitioner - tenant Subhash Chander from the premises in litigation. This order was upheld by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 17.2.2011. When the matter came up in revision petition before this Court, i.e. Civil Revision No. 2562 of 2011, on 30.7.2012 orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were affirmed.
3. The second round of litigation is on between the parties when execution proceedings are continuing. It is not disputed that the petitioner- tenant was carrying on his business from an almirah placed outside the shop of the landlord in a varandha. On the ground of personal necessity of the landlord, the tenant had been evicted from the said almirah placed on PARKASH SOM 2014.08.22 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5133 of 2014 2 ..
the outer wall of the shop of the landlord. Almirah comes within the definition of 'Building' as defined in Haryana Urban [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973 and is thus, no more a matter of debate. Reference may be made to Harish Chandra and another Vs. Mohd. Ismail and others 1990(2) RLR 546 [SC]. Even this Court in Civil Revision No. 1290 of 2008, decided on 24.8.2009, [wherein two similar almirahs which were on the same wall of the same shop had been let out to some other tenant who was ordered to be evicted] had come to a finding that such almirahs placed on the outer wall of shop of the landlord were within the definition of a 'Building' in terms of the Act.
4. From the perusal of the impugned order of 3.5.2014 [Annexure P/9], it transpires that consequent upon passing of order dated 19.8.2013 in execution proceedings, warrant of possession was issued to make compliance of order of 30.7.2012 of this Court. Vide the impugned order, Annexure P/9, police help has been ordered for the Bailiff to comply with the orders of this Court to break open the locks if any, found on the property in question and to remove the structure found on the property. Even the earlier order of 19.8.2013 [Annexure P/6], which had not been challenged earlier, is now under challenge in this petition. There is nothing factual or legally wrong with the impugned orders dated 19.8.2013 [Annexure P/6] and 3.5.2014 [Annexure P/9] passed by the Executing Court in compliance with orders of 31.7.2012 of this Court.
5. In view of the above, finding no merit in the revision petition, it is dismissed in limine.
(Dr. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) JUDGE August 21st, 2014 som PARKASH SOM 2014.08.22 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document