Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Kaur vs Paramdeep Singh And Another on 20 January, 2023
CR-950-2021(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-950-2021(O&M)
Date of decision:-20.1.2023
Charanjit Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Paramdeep Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.R.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner Paramdeep
Singh had brought a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Avtar
Singh - tenant for his eviction from the demised shop forming part of
House No.595 opposite Gurudwara Kashmirian, Tripuri Town, Patiala, on
the ground of respondent-tenant being in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2014 to
1.1.2017. That petition was allowed ex-parte by Rent Controller, Patiala.
Ms.Charanjit Kaur wife of Avtar Singh tenant had filed an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the rent petition, which was declined. She
had filed a revision petition against that order, which was also rejected.
1 of 5
CR-950-2021(O&M) -2-
She had filed an application under Section 31 of Punjab Relief Indebtness
Act for depositing a sum of Rs.86,400/- as arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2014
to 1.1.2017. Notice of that application was given to petitioner/landlord,
who did not accept that amount. Charanjit Kaur had then preferred third
party objections before the Executing Court of Rent Controller, Patiala,
where the petitioner/landlord had filed an application for execution of the
ejectment order to get possession of shop in question. Those objections
were dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated
18.2.2021. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is being
reproduced as under:
"The third party objector-Charanjit Kaur who is wife of Avtar
Singh respondent/tenant, nowhere claimed in these objections that
she was also tenant of Paramdeep Singh, decree holder as per rent
deed dated 8.9.1990. Firstly, Charanjit Kaur, objection is not
tenant of the decree holder, so, she has no locus-standi to file the
present objections against ex-parte judgment and decree dated
31.10.2018. Admittedly, Avtar Singh tenant/respondent was in
arrears of rent since 1.1.2014 to 1.1.2017 and till the passing of the
above-said ex-parte judgment dated 31.10.2018, no rent was paid
by the Avtar Singh to the decree holder. Now, Charanjit Kaur third
party objector claimed that she moved application under Section 31
of Punjab Relief Indebtness Act and deposited due rent since
15.2.2018 till 30.11.2018. Secondly, it is necessary to mention here
that Charanjit Kaur deposited the rent in the year 2018 and in the
said rent petition, the eviction order was passed on the ground that
2 of 5
CR-950-2021(O&M) -3-
the Avtar Singh respondent/tenant was in arrears of rent from
1.1.2014 to 1.1.2017. Lastly, this Court is of opinion that Charanjit
Kaur is not tenant of decree holder and after passing the eviction
order against her husband Avtar Singh/tenant she is now in illegal
possession of the rented premises. In view of that has been
discussed above in detail, the third party objections are hereby
stands dismissed and disposed off.
2. This order left the applicant aggrieved and she has
approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition, notice
of which was issued to respondents and respondent No.1 has put in
appearance through counsel.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record and I find that the present revision petition is
absolutely without any merit.
4. Admittedly, Avtar Singh, husband of the revision petitioner
was tenant in the demised shop against whom an ex-parte judgment/order
has been passed by Rent Controller, Patiala. The same having not been
modified or set aside in appeal has attained finality.
5. As per the version of the revision petitioner her husband
Avtar Singh is not traceable for last more than 8 years and FIR No.86
dated 17.4.2014 has been got recorded with Police Station Tripuri, Patiala,
copy of that FIR being Ex.P2. Under the circumstances, the applicant has
stepped into his shoes and has got a right to retain possession of shop in
question.
3 of 5
CR-950-2021(O&M) -4-
6. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has
contended that the FIR has been lodged against accused Harpreet Kaur
and Kirpal Singh levelling allegations of their having kidnapped Avtar
Singh and there is nothing on record to show that Avtar Singh is not alive
or that he should be presumed to be dead. Furthermore, no decree or order
passed by the Court in that regard is claimed to be there by the revision
petitioner. Therefore, her application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for
being impleaded as a party and her third party objections filed in the
execution proceedings were rightly rejected. Similarly, the appeal filed by
her has also been dismissed for non-prosecution by Additional District
Judge, Patiala vide order dated 5.7.2022. Therefore, the revision petition
be dismissed.
7. After considering the rival contentions, I find that there is
absolutely no merit in the revision petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed. Admittedly, the relationship of landlord and tenant is there
between Paramdeep Singh and Avtar Singh and on an ejectment petition
having been filed by Paramdeep Singh, which has been allowed ex-parte,
petitioner/landlord Paramdeep Singh is seeking possession of the demised
shop in question. The revision petitioner can certainly not resist delivery
of possession to him on any such objection raised by her in the objection
petition submitted on her behalf in the execution proceedings. Though she
has adopted all the possible methods to stall delivery of possession
including moving application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filing appeal
and then third party objections but she has been unsuccessful every time.
The third party objections filed by the revision petitioners were rightly
4 of 5
CR-950-2021(O&M) -5-
rejected by the executing Court. The order passed in that regard is quite
detailed and well reasoned and it does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity. No reason is there to interfere with it by exercising revisional
jurisdiction.
8. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands
dismissed. The status quo order passed in favour of the revision petitioner
on 29.4.2021 stands withdrawn.
Since the main revision petition has been dismissed, the
miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
20.1.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
