Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The objections were dismissed by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that objector is the co-owner, as such, landlord of the property. As per the copy of rent note Annexure P-2, demised premises was let out to M/s Ikeda Enterprises on 01.12.2000. The tenant (M/s Ikeda Enterprises) vacated the premises and returned possession to the objector in the year 2005. While referring to the report of the Local Commissioner (Annexure P-8), he has 3 of 7 argued that this report proves that possession over the suit property is of objector-revision petitioner and none of the tenant in demised premises admitted himself to be tenant under respondent No.1. The ejectment of respondent No.2 was ordered from Shed No.1, while the execution was filed seeking its ejectment from Shed No.4. Learned Rent Controller has not even discussed and dealt with the objections raised by the objector, in his order.

It has been argued that Shed No.1 or 4 are not in existence at the spot. The ejectment of respondent No.2 was sought from Shed No.1 while respondent No.1 in execution has sought possession of Shed No.4.

The ejectment of respondent No.2 as per order of learned Rent Controller has been ordered from the demised premises and the description and identity of the same is to be looked into by the Executing Court. Even if, there is some mistake in the details of demised premises in the execution application, the same can be rectified by the Executing Court.