Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

V.K. Jhanji, J

1.This revision petition against order dated 4.8.1997 whereby objection petition field by the respondent NO.2, namely, M/s. Deepak Radios has been accepted and it has been held that it cannot be evicted in execution of decree dated 1.6.1990 passed on civil suit No. 34 of 11.6.1982.

2. In brief, the facts are that Shander Singh and others (hereinafter referred to as decree holders) hare owners of SCO Nos. 73-74-75, Section 17-D, Chandigarh. Vide rent agreement dated 13.3.1978, decree-holders let out ground floor area measuring 20ft.x40ft. to M/s. Pacific Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as judgment-debtor). Rent was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Rent agreement specifically provided that the tenant shall not sub-let or part with possession of the said tenanted premises or any portion thereof to any person. On expiry of the tenancy period, judgment-debtor did not vacate the premises and that led to filing of civil suit No. 34 of 11.6.1982, titled as Shander Singh and others v. Pacific Enterprises, for possession of the tenanted premises on the basis of valid notice to quit. Judgment-debtor preferred civil appeal NO. 163 dated 27.7.1990. Appeal remained pending for a period of six years when on 23.1.1996, by making a statement, judgment-debtor got it dismissed as withdrawn. After dismissal of the appeal, decree-holders in order to recover possession in pursuance of ejectment decree dated 1.6.1990, filed an execution application praying that warrants of possession in respect of the tenanted premises be issued and possession be got delivered. It is at this stage that M/s. Deepak Radios (hereinafter referred to as objector) filed objections against execution of ejectment decree dated 1.6.1990. It took the following pleas:-

"It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases where the landlord institutes as suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suite would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease. the law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act."