Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the execution petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the appellant filed an objection petition claiming that M/s Sunil Auto Service, through its proprietor Sunil Kumar is in possession of portion of plot No.120, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, as a tenant and the objector had taken on rent the said premises from Shri Vinod Kumar Suri deceased at a monthly rent of ` 3500/-, ... 2 excluding water and electricity charges and the objector had been running its business under the name and style of M/s Sunil Auto Service, in the tenanted premises since 2001 being in possession of the premises as tenant. It was claimed that when the Balliff of the Court visited the tenanted premises of the objector on 02.09.2002, the objector came to know about the ejectment order having been passed against Ashok Kohli and Anil Kohli. On enquiry the objector came to know that Vinod Kumar Suri had filed a rent petition against Ashok Kohli and Anil Kohli, for their eviction from the premises in dispute. The litigation was not in his knowledge. The objector claims that he had been making payment of rent to Shri Vinod Kumar Suri. It was averred that the possession of the objector in the premises was legal as tenant and as such, he could not be dispossessed in execution of an ejectment order passed in rent petition in which the objector was not made a party. Ashok Kohli and Anil Kohli had not informed the objector that the decree holder had filed an application for ejectment in respect of the premises in dispute and on the other hand they have not contested the case seriously and their counsel did not argue the revision petition in the High Court. It was argued that the revision petition had been decided without arguments on their behalf as they were not in possession of the premises in dispute and that they connived with landlords and did not take any interest in the case. The objector claims that he has been a tenant in three rooms in plot No.120, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh and in the petition addresses of both the JDs are not of the premises ... 3 which indicate that they were not in possession of the premises in dispute. The objector claims that he could not be evicted in execution of an eviction order dated 22.01.2001, affirmed by the High Court in revision petition, on 20.05.2009.

In order to prevent any prejudice to the objector and to satisfy the judicial conscious, as to how the name of M/s Sunil Auto Service, came into existence, I have considered the reply of the decree holder submitted by them to the objection petition. It has been specifically pleaded in the reply to the objection petition that the objector has been fielded as a front man by the judgment debtor to frustrate the fruits of ejectment order. A copy of the reply to the objection petition has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. A copy of the report of the Balliff has been placed on record as Annexure R-5, which indicates that when the Balliff of the Court had gone to the premises in question on 02.09.2002, to execute the warrants of possession, the same was resisted by Sunil Kumar and his brother Parkash, claiming to be the Incharge on behalf of the judgment debtors. The said fact was duly reported by the Balliff to the executing Court to seek police help for executing the warrants of possession. Connection of Sunil Kumar with the tenants is depicted from photograph Annexure R-18, in which the name of the tenant- occupant is mentioned as M/s Kohli Auto Service whereas the name of Sunil Kumar is mentioned to be the person who might be managing the affairs of M/s Kohli Auto Service. A specific question was asked from counsel for the appellant as to what is the . . . 11 relationship of Sunil Kumar with M/s Kohli Auto Service. Mr.B.C. Bitta, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that he has got instructions to say that Sunil Kumar has got no concern with M/s Kohli Auto Service or its proprietor Ashok Kohli or sub-tenant Anil Kohli. The said contention seems to be falsified from the report of the Balliff Kala Ram who had gone to execute the warrants of possession, passed against Ashok Kohli, but was obstructed by Sunil Kumar claiming himself to be Incharge. The above situation clearly establishes that Sunil Kumar has either been working as a Manager/employee or as authorized agent of the original tenant M/s Kohli Auto Service and he himself has failed to establish his status as a tenant in any portion of the premises in dispute having miserably failed to produce any rent receipt, rent note or any other document to establish the relationship of tenant with the landlord. The present case is a typical instance of flagrant abuse of process of the Court to hamper the execution of ejectment order against the tenant Ashok Kohli who had been running the business of M/s Kohli Auto Service. A business card, Annexure R-7, has been placed on record which indicates that name of Sunil along with Parkash is mentioned to be the persons running M/s Kohli Auto Service.