CR No.6686 of 2008 [1]
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.6686 of 2008
Date of Decision: 10 - 12 - 2008
Daya Wati and another ....Petitioner
v.
Kailash Rani and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Ashok Khubbar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL)
Case of petitioner No.1 is that her husband Sham Lal Gupta
was the tenant. After his death, she along with her daughter Anchla Rani
and son Ramesh Chand had inherited the tenancy. Sham Lal Gupta died on
23.1.2003 during the pendency of eviction petition. It has been contended
before me that son Ramesh Chand was brought on record as legal heir of
Sham Lal Gupta and petitioners Daya Wati and Anchla Rani were not
impleaded as legal representatives. Objection petition was filed before the
Executing Court. The Executing Court held that son Ramesh Chand had
vigorously followed the litigation against the landlord and acted on behalf
of the petitioners. The Executing Court after examining the entire record
also observed that the interest of the objectors were well looked after by
CR No.6686 of 2008 [2]
Ramesh Chand.
On the last date of hearing file of Civil Revision No.2923 of
2007 filed by son Ramesh Chand was summoned by this Court. That
revision petition was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
8.10.2007. All arguments which were possibly available have been raised
by Ramesh Chand. It cannot be said that there was any other argument
which was available and the same has not been raised to the detriment of the
petitioners.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioners state that petitioner No.
1 is 85 years old lady, whereas petitioner No.2 is divorcee dependent upon
petitioner No.1. Therefore, he state that he crave and submit himself to the
mercy of the Court that sufficient time be granted to the petitioners to make
alternative arrangement. Taking into consideration that petitioners are two
ladies, widow and divorcee respectively, therefore, six months time is
granted to the petitioners to vacate the demised premises. The Executing
Court may defer the execution proceedings for six months subject to filing
an undertaking on or before 1.1.2009 that petitioners shall hand over vacant
possession of the demised premises to the landlady on or before 30.6.2009
subject to depositing the entire arrears of rent, if any, and rent in advance.
The present revision petition is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
December 10, 2008. JUDGE
RC