Judgment:
CR No.7981 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) C.R.No.7981 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: JULY15 2014 Ajmer Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Smt.
Krishna Devi & others ....Respondents (2) C.R.No.7546 of 2012 DATE OF DECISION: JULY15 2014 Krishna Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS Ajmer Singh & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate (for the petitioner in CR No.7981 of 2011 and for respondent No.1 in CR No.7546 of 2012) Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate (for the petitioner in CR No.7546 of 2012 and for respondent No.1 CR No.7981 of 2011).***** MAHESH GROVER, J.
(ORAL) This order will dispose of two revision petitions i.e CR No.7981 of 2011 and CR No.7546 of 2012.
In CR No.7981 of 2011, petitioner-Ajmer Singh claims himself to be a tenant under the respondent Harish Kumar 2014.07.31 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7981 of 2011 -2- namely Smt.
Krishna Devi and filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain her from forcibly dispossessing him.
Both the courts below declined the injunction to him, even though, for some time, there was an order of status quo in favour of the petitioner.
The suit property has been described as Shop No.622, Ward No.12, Guhla Road, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
With regard to this very property, respondent-Krishna Devi filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking eviction of one Darshan Lal on the grounds of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and sub-letting.
In these rent proceedings, Ajmer Singh, the petitioner in CR No.7981 of 2011, filed an application for impleading him as a necessary party.
The said application was declined which led to filing a revision petition before this Court which was also dismissed and while doing so, this Court observed that the petitioner who has been pleaded to be a sub-tenant of the respondent landlady, was not a necessary party and it was noticed that besides this, the suit for permanent injunction has already been filed by Ajmer Singh seeking protection of his possession.
The grievance of the petitioner in CR No.7981 of 2011 is, thus, that he cannot be dispossessed from the premises as he is a tenant and not a sub-tenant and thus, keeping in view his possession, he is entitled to an injunction to protect his legitimate possession.
So far as CR No.7546 of 2012 is concerned, it has arisen out of execution proceedings where after having successfully obtained orders from the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the respondent (in Harish Kumar 2014.07.31 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7981 of 2011 -3- CR No.7981 of 2011) landlady Krishna Devi seeks to enforce such orders through the Court of Law.
Ajmer Singh filed objections in the execution proceedings whereby his plea for leading evidence in this regard was accepted.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that order dated 15.10.2012 which is cause of grievance of Krishna Devi- landlady in CR No.7546 of 2012 is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Once the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have given a positive finding about Darshan Lal being tenant and the objections of Ajmer Singh being a sub-tenant having been negated, then keeping in view the settled proposition of law that in the execution proceedings, the Court cannot go beyond the decree, the Executing Court could not have permitted a backdoor entry to the sub-tenant by accepting his objections after positive finding had been recorded to that effect in proceedings which have attained finality.
Through out the proceedings which were pending and which were obviously to the knowledge of Ajmer Singh, he made no attempt to assert his right as a tenant except for filing that application which was dismissed with no further challenge.
This Court, in fact, put it to the learned counsel representing Ajmer Singh as to whether he has any material to indicate that he is in possession of the shop as tenant under Krishna Devi but the only material he refers would indicate his possession alone which is not in dispute in any case.
No receipt of rent nor books of accounts indicating payment of rent at any point of time to the landlady has been shown either to the courts below or to this Court.
Clearly he had the option Harish Kumar 2014.07.31 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7981 of 2011 -4- to produce such material when he filed the objections asserting his tenancy but he did not do so.
Therefore, there is absolutely no material which may form the basis of the plea of Ajmer Singh, the petitioner in CR No.7981 of 2011 that he is a tenant on the demised premises.
Under these circumstance, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court was erroneous and it should have proceeded to execute the orders of the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Authority where complete findings about Ajmer Singh being a sub-tenant had been recorded.
It may be noticed that Darshan Lal has candidly stated in his testimony that Ajmer Singh is a partner and a sub- tenant in the premises.
That being the situation, CR No.7546 of 2012 is accepted and the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P-8) is set aside, whereas, CR No.7981 of 2011 is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed in accordance with law.
July 15, 2014 ( MAHESH GROVER ) Harish JUDGE Harish Kumar 2014.07.31 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document