Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Respondent-decree holder filed execution petition in the year 2003 for execution of the ejectment order. Petitioner preferred objections in the execution petition alleging that after petitioner's father lost in appeal against ejectment order, he vacated the demised premises and thereafter the respondent by way of oral tenancy let out the said property to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1994 on rent of ` 500/- per month and since then petitioner is residing there with his family and therefore, in view of fresh tenancy in his favour, he cannot be ejected from the demised premises in execution of the ejectment order passed against his father.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that fresh oral tenancy was created in favour of the petitioner after his father vacated the demised property pursuant to ejectment order and therefore, petitioner is not liable to be ejected from the demised property in execution of the ejectment order passed against his father. In this context much emphasis was laid by counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the execution petition was filed almost ten years after the appeal preferred by the petitioner's father against ejectment order had been dismissed and if there had been no fresh tenancy, respondent - decree holder would not have waited for ten years to file the execution petition.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The impugned order of the executing court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. Execution of the ejectment order is sought to be thwarted by the petitioner by filing meritless objections. The petitioner being legal heir of his father is bound by the ejectment order. The revision petition is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.


                                                        ( L.N. Mittal )
November 17, 2010                                            Judge
  'dalbir'