Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Charan Dass vs Kannu Saini And Ors on 23 January, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
-1-
2024:PHHC:008312
CR-263-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-263-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 18.01.2024
Pronounced on : 23.01.2024
HARI CHARAN DASS ....Petitioner
VERSUS
KANNU SAINI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-3)
whereby the stay application filed by the third party objector in the appeal
against the order dated 18.08.2023 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that respondent
No.1 filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Punjab Rent Act').
Respondent No.1 being a co-owner filed the ejectment petition on the
grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide personal necessity.
3. On notice, the title of respondent No.1 was challenged. It was
further the stand taken by the tenant that the rent had been paid to one Hari
Charan Dass son of Krishan Kumar who was also one of the co-sharer of the
property. The Rent Controller vide order dated 09.05.2016 allowed the
eviction petition. An appeal was preferred by the judgment debtor-
respondent No.2 herein which was also dismissed vide order dated
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:008312
CR-263-2024
19.08.2019. Subsequently, respondent No.1-decree holder filed an execution
petition. In the execution petition the judgment debtor suffered a statement
that he had vacated the premises and he was no more in possession of the
demised premises. Third party objections were also filed by the petitioner
herein.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following three
issues were framed :
(i) Whether the third party objector Hari Charan Dass
is entitled to the possession of the demise
premises, i.e. shop being co-owner along with
decree holder ? OP-third party objector
(ii) Whether the objections of the third party objector
are not maintainable on the ground that he has no
share in the demise property ? OP-DH
(iii) Whether the decree holder is not entitled to
recover arrears of rent on the ground that, in the
execution petition, arrears of rent as assessed by
the learned Rent Controller cannot be recovered
without any specific order of recovered passed by
the Civil Court ? OP-JD.
Before the Executing Court the learned counsel for the
petitioner (third party objector) suffered a statement that they have received
possession and the objections be dismissed as withdrawn. On the said basis
the evidence of the petitioner was closed. The decree holder appeared and
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:008312
CR-263-2024
tendered in evidence his own affidavit and other documentary evidence.
Vide order dated 18.08.2023 the Executing Court held that the third party
objector i.e. the petitioner herein had failed to prove his case by leading
cogent evidence and he had failed to do so despite availing opportunities for
the same. He also did not come present to cross-examine the witness of the
decree holder and further that the statement of the third party objector that
the objections be dismissed as withdrawn clearly showed his intention not to
contest the objections. Accordingly, the decree holder was held entitled to
possession and warrants of possession were issued. Aggrieved by the said
order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and his sisters (proforma
respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein). In that appeal an application for stay was
filed. The said application for stay was dismissed vide impugned order dated
10.11.2023 by the First Appellant Court. Hence, the present revision
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner is the co-owner of the shop and the erstwhile tenant (respondent
No.2 herein) had handed over possession to him and hence he was entitled to
remain in possession of the shop. It is submitted that the tenant had given
him the possession of the shop after the eviction order was passed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The Rent Controller had disbelieved the tenant qua him having
paid the rent to the petitioner. The tenant had preferred an appeal against the
eviction order dated 09.05.2016 of the Rent Controller which appeal was
dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2019 of the Appellate Authority. The
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:008312
CR-263-2024
petitioner chose not to become a party to the litigation during the pendency
of the proceedings before the Authorities under the Rent Act. Subsequently,
during the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor made a statement that
he had handed over vacant possession. The present petitioner, who had filed
third party objections, also made a statement that he had got possession of
the property and therefore did not pursue the objections filed by him before
the Executing Court. Neither did the petitioner (third party objector) lead
any evidence nor did he come forward to cross-examine the witness of the
decree holder-respondent No.1. There being nothing on the record to
substantiate the pleas raised and argued, learned counsel for the petitioner
has not been able convince this Court that he has any right, title or interest in
the property. The attempt seems to be more to hijack the ejectment
proceedings to try and legalize his possession on the property.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
23.01.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order.
