CR/7214/2008 of KIRAN BALA AND ORS. Vs SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS. on 24 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

CR No.7214 of 2008Decided on : 24-12-2008

Smt. Kiran Bala and others

.

...Petitioners

VERSUS

Sumitra Devi and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:-Mr. Surabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners MAHESH GROVER, J

The petitioners who are the tenants were proceeded against bythe respondent in a civil suit seeking their eviction. The petitioners are thetenants on the suit land. The suit was preferred because the provisions ofthe Rent Act were not applicable, the building being less than 10 years ofage. The respondent-landlord succeeded in the civil suit and the appealpreferred by the petitioners against the order of the learned Trial Court wasalso dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide ordersdated 19.2.2004. The respondent thereafter preferred the execution petitionin which an objection was raised by the petitioners primarily saying that inanother suit against the respondent-landlord preferred by Lal Chand, he wasnot declared to be the owner and the subject matter of that litigation ispending in a Regular Second Appeal before this Court. The ExecutingCourt dismissed the objection by observing that a valid decree exists infavour of the respondent and the Executing Court cannot look beyond the decree which has attained finality.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since thequestion of ownership is still to be determined, the executing proceedingsshould have been kept in abeyance till the matter in Regular Second Appealis decided.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of theconsidered opinion that the revision petition is without any merit.Concededly, suit of the respondent-landlord was decreed in his favour afterdirecting the petitioners to be evicted from the premises in question, thequestion of ownership which was raised in this very suit has been left openas it was determined that the respondent is the landlord even though he maynot be the owner. The petitioners have not denied that they were inductedas tenants by the respondent. Besides, the appeal preferred by thepetitioners against the judgement and decree of the learned Trial Courtdated 23.2.2001 was also dismissed, implying thereby that the findings havebeen affirmed.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be termedto be erroneous and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is herebydismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that some time be granted to the petitioners to make alternate arrangements asthey are in possession of the property since long.

I have considered the prayer made by the learned counsel forthe petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioners are in possessionof the property since long, I deem it appropriate to direct that in the event ofthe petitioners submitting an undertaking before the Executing Court within CR No. 7214 of 2008

a period of three weeks from today to the effect that they shall hand overvacant physical possession of the suit property to the respondent-landlordon or before 30.6.2009, the execution proceedings shall remain in abeyance.The petitioners shall continue to pay the rent as they have been paying tillnow including the arrears of rent, if any, which they shall pay alongwithundertaking. Failure to furnish the undertaking within the stipulated periodshall result in automatic denial of the benefit of this order to the petitioners.

December 24 , 2008rekha

(Mahesh Grover)Judge