Government and the landlord. Therefore, the
execution proceedings in question were liable to be stayed.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner
from the premises ... Apex Court. During the pendency of the execution
proceedings, petitioner moved an application for stay of
execution proceedings. The case of the petitioner was that
Government and the landlord. Therefore, the
execution proceedings in question were liable to be stayed.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner
from the premises ... Apex Court. During the pendency of the execution
proceedings, petitioner moved an application for stay of
execution proceedings. The case of the petitioner was that
Government and the landlord. Therefore, the
execution proceedings in question were liable to be stayed.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner
from the premises ... Apex Court. During the pendency of the execution
proceedings, petitioner moved an application for stay of
execution proceedings. The case of the petitioner was that
Government and the landlord. Therefore, the
execution proceedings in question were liable to be stayed.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner
from the premises ... Apex Court. During the pendency of the execution
proceedings, petitioner moved an application for stay of
execution proceedings. The case of the petitioner was that
Government and the landlord. Therefore, the
execution proceedings in question were liable to be stayed.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner
from the premises ... Apex Court. During the pendency of the execution
proceedings, petitioner moved an application for stay of
execution proceedings. The case of the petitioner was that
Government and the landlord. Therefore, the
execution proceedings in question were liable to be stayed.
Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner
from the premises ... Apex Court. During the pendency of the execution
proceedings, petitioner moved an application for stay of
execution proceedings. The case of the petitioner was that
Relief."
The Rent Controller vide order dated 27.05.2014
allowed the ejectment petition. The said order was upheld by the
Appellate Court vide order dated ... habitation.
In execution proceedings, the possession of the premises in
question has been delivered to the respondent.
The landlord had sought ejectment of the tenant
seeking ejectment of the
petitioner and Asha Begam from the premises in question. The Rent
Controller vide order dated 14.01.2014 allowed the ejectment petition ... ordered the
ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question. Learned
counsel for the respondent has further submitted that in the execution
proceedings possession
petitioner that she
was the owner of the property in question, the ejectment petitions
filed by Prem Chand (since deceased) were allowed and the
respondents ... vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord.
During the execution proceedings, petitioner filed her
objections. Case of the petitioner is that
record rent note executed between the
parties. Although, respondent had denied the execution of the said
document but at this stage, the same could ... behalf of respondent No. 1.
Petitioner and respondent No. 2 have sought ejectment
of respondent No. 1 from the premises in question by moving
