CR/21/2017 on 29 December 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CR No. 21 of 2017

Decided on :29.12.2017

Suresh Sharma

…Petitioner

Versus

Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj

…Respondent ___________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

CMP No. 9532 of 2017 Heard. Civil Revision petition No. 21 of 2017, was, for want of appearance of the counsel for the petitioner AND for want of, personal appearance of the petitioner, hence dismissed in default, on 11.8.2017. Subsequently, the applicant has motioned this Court, through, an application cast under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, seeking recall of the orders pronounced by this Court on 11.8.2017, whereby, this Court was constrained to, for the aforesaid reasons hence dismiss in default, civil revision petition No. 21 of 2017. Given good and sufficient cause meted in the application, whereupon, the counsel for the applicant was precluded to record his appearance before this Court on 11.8.2017, thereupon the application is allowed and the orders recorded by this Court are recalled and the petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. CR No. 21 of 2017 The landlord, as displayed in Annexure P-4, instituted an execution petition, cast, under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35 clause (1) read with Rule 36 of the CPC, wherein, he, through the aegis of the executing Court, sought relief of delivery, of, coercive possession of the demised premises, in respect whereof, conclusive orders, of, eviction stood pronounced by the learned Rent Controller concerned. During the pendency of the aforesaid execution petition, the tenant filed objections before the learned Executing Court, carrying contention(s) therein, of, the entire arrears of rent vis- à-vis the demised premises, being liquidated by him, especially, within the statutory period, of one month, commencing since pronouncement, of, the apposite order(s) of eviction. However, the learned Executing Court, dismissed the aforesaid objections, preferred by the tenant, vis-à-vis the execution petition.

2. Being aggrieved therefrom, the tenant has instituted the instant petition before this Court, whereby he seeks to beget reversal, of, the impugned order, from this Court.

3. The trite objection(s) reared by the tenant, vis-à-vis the executability of order(s) of eviction, through coercive process, is embedded in his liquidating the apposite entire arrears of rent, vide challan of 28.5.2012. However a perusal of parapgrah-13, of, the order impugned before this Court, makes, a vivid disclosure, of, the extant execution petition appertaining, to, arrears of rent commencing from 1.5.2012, AND ending on 29.2.2016, (i) wherefrom the inevitable consequence, is, deposit(s) of rent, if any, aforesaid, by the tenant, not visibly appertaining to the period, within, which the tenant fell into arrears of rent, vis-à-vis the demised premises. In aftermath, therefrom no leverage, is purveyed vis-a-vis the tenants’ espousal(s), of, his within, the statutory period of one month, since the pronouncement, of, orders by the learned Rent Controller, his making liquidation(s) of the apposite arrears of rent.

4. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The impugned order (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution in civil suit No. 26- of is maintained and affirmed. All pending application(s), if any are disposed of.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

Judge December 29, 2017 Kalpana