Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir vs Rohtak Coop. Marketing Society ... on 6 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117763
2023:PHHC:117763
CR-5208-2023 -1-
135-3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-5208-2023
DECIDED ON: 06.09.2023
SATBIR
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE ROHTAK COOP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
Present: Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 25.08.2023
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak
vide which warrants of possession have been issued with a further direction to
the bailiff to break open the locks of the shop in possession of the petitioner. The
Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station has also been directed to
provide necessary police help.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the
respondent-landlord i.e. The Rohtak Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. instituted an
eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') seeking eviction of
the petitioner from a shop in Rohtak on the grounds of non-payment of rent and
impairment of the value and utility of the shop on account of demolishing of the
front portion of the shop and attempts of raising illegal construction etc. The
eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller, Rohtak on 30.10.2010. An
appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed on 08.10.2012. No execution
petition was filed till the year 2019. It has been averred in the revision petition
that the same was not done on account of intervention of respectable persons of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117763
2023:PHHC:117763
the Society and considering the fact that the petitioner had no other source of
income. The petitioner, under the circumstances, also did not challenge the
judgment of the Appellate Authority any further. However, in 2019, an execution
petition (Annexure P-1) was filed. During the pendency of the execution petition,
objections were preferred by the petitioner in which it was submitted that there
were no valid grounds for eviction. The objections were dismissed by the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak vide order dated 29.07.2023
(Annexure P-2). An appeal is stated to have been filed against the said order
which is stated to be pending. In the meantime, the Executing Court, which had
issued warrants of possession, issued a direction to the bailiff to break open the
locks of the shop and to handover the possession of the shop in question to the
decree holder. The Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station was
also directed to provide necessary police help. It is against this order dated
25.08.2023 that the present revision petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
is willing to settle the matter with the respondent-landlord and is willing to pay
the rent for the shop in question. However, upon a query raised by this Court as
to whether any rent had been paid from 2010 till date, the answer is in the
negative. Learned counsel made another attempt to convince the Court by stating
that appeal against the dismissal of the objection petition is pending. It has been
submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set
aside.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.
5. The eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, Rohtak vide
judgment dated 30.10.2010. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate
Authority on 08.10.2012. As per the own case of the petitioner, keeping in view
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117763
2023:PHHC:117763
the fact that the petitioner had no other source of income, no execution petition
was filed for a period of seven years thereafter. What terms and conditions were
arrived at between the parties is not known since there is no document on record
and the only oral version of the petitioner is that the respondent-landlord had not
filed the execution petition keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had no
other source of income. Eventually, the execution petition was filed in the year
2019. The petitioner then filed an objection petition wherein all grounds on
merits were again raised. The objection petition was dismissed on 29.07.2023
and an appeal is stated to be pending against the said order. No stay order has
been produced on record. The impugned order shows that warrants of possession
had been issued prior to 25.08.2023. On 25.08.2023, the execution petition was
fixed for awaiting compliance report from the bailiff. The warrant of the
possession was received back unexecuted with a report of the bailiff that the shop
was found to be locked. Under the circumstances, the Executing Court passed the
impugned order, the details of which have been referred in the preceding
paragraphs. I do not find any illegality in the said order at all warranting
interference in Revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner has not been able to show
any ground on which the impugned order may be liable to be interfered with.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
06.09.2023 JUDGE
Prince Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117763
3 of 3
