Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On giving a careful consideration to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the same are not tenable. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of challenging the provisional assessment of rent by filing revision petition in this Court. He also filed appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2014. The scope of interference by the executing Court during the execution proceedings is very limited. The executing Court can look into all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, arising between the parties, during the execution proceedings. However, in this case, after the passing of ejectment order against the petitioner, no question of right, title or interest in the property could be raised by the revision petitioner. The other remedies available to him under law have already been availed by filing revision petition against order of provisional assessment of rent and appeal against order of Rent Controller dated 03.12.2013 ordering ejectment of petitioner from demised premises. The fact as to whether the area of the shop in question is 1800 square feet or 1275 square feet, will be a point in issue when the possession of the shop will be delivered. In his applications before the executing Court, the entire stress of the revision petitioner is on fraud played by the landlord regarding the rate of rent and the demised premises, for which he had the opportunity to impress while filing the revision petition against the order of provisional assessment by the Rent Controller and in the appeal against the order of ejectment or by filing revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.01.2014. The Rent Controller while executing an order of ejectment, has committed no error or law while declining the applications of petitioner.