CR No. 7214 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.7214 of 2008
Decided 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 by
the respondent in a civil suit seeking their eviction. The petitioners are the
tenants on the suit land. The suit was preferred because the provisions of
the Rent Act were not applicable, the building being less than 10 years of
age. The respondent-landlord succeeded in the civil suit and the appeal
preferred by the petitioners against the order of the learned Trial Court was
also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide orders
dated 19.2.2004. The respondent thereafter preferred the execution petition
in which an objection was raised by the petitioners primarily saying that in
another suit against the respondent-landlord preferred by Lal Chand, he was
not declared to be the owner and the subject matter of that litigation is
pending in a Regular Second Appeal before this Court. The Executing
Court dismissed the objection by observing that a valid decree exists in
favour of the respondent and the Executing Court cannot look beyond the
CR No. 7214 of 2008 2
decree which has attained finality.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the
question of ownership is still to be determined, the executing proceedings
should have been kept in abeyance till the matter in Regular Second Appeal
is decided.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the
considered opinion that the revision petition is without any merit.
Concededly, suit of the respondent-landlord was decreed in his favour after
directing the petitioners to be evicted from the premises in question, the
question of ownership which was raised in this very suit has been left open
as it was determined that the respondent is the landlord even though he may
not be the owner. The petitioners have not denied that they were inducted
as tenants by the respondent. Besides, the appeal preferred by the
petitioners against the judgement and decree of the learned Trial Court
dated 23.2.2001 was also dismissed, implying thereby that the findings have
been affirmed.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be termed
to be erroneous and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby
dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
some time be granted to the petitioners to make alternate arrangements as
they are in possession of the property since long.
I have considered the prayer made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioners are in possession
of the property since long, I deem it appropriate to direct that in the event of
the petitioners submitting an undertaking before the Executing Court within
CR No. 7214 of 2008 3
a period of three weeks from today to the effect that they shall hand over
vacant physical possession of the suit property to the respondent-landlord
on 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 till
now including the arrears of rent, if any, which they shall pay alongwith
undertaking. Failure to furnish the undertaking within the stipulated period
shall result in automatic denial of the benefit of this order to the petitioners.
December 24 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge