BALWANT SINGH Vs. BHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balwant Singh petitioner herein is a tenant under Shri Bhori Lal, responden herein in respect of shop premises No. 77 of property.No.. 8551, Model Basti. Delhi since the year 1934. As per the petitioner, on 20th January, 1982, he was dispossessed from the suit premises in an illegal manner. Aggrieved by the dispossession and the manner in which he was dispossessed from the premises, the petitioner filed second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Ace, 1958 in this Court which was registered as SAO 77/82 That appeal has been decided by Bhandare, J- on 27th July, 1990 and the same was accepted. The order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 7th August, 1981, by taking aid of which the respondent landlord dispossessed the petitioner-tenant from the premises in depute, was set aside. While accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant. Sunanda Bhandare, J. observed as under:

(2.) . Despite this order which was passed in the presence of the respondent represented by a counsel as well, he failed and neglected to put the petitioner in possession of the shop premises in terms, of the directions of this Court which necessitated the petitioner in moving various applications in this Court for getting the possession- Vide order of this Court dated 9th July, 1991, warrant of possession of the shop in dispute were ordered to be issued returnable for 9th August, 1991 with permission to bread open the lock/locks, which have been put on the shop. Police assistance was also ordered to be provided for execution of the warrants of possession.

(3.) . As per the report of the bailiff, the possession of only half portion of the shop could be delivered because a wall was found erected in the shop premises and the area of the shop was also 3 found to be reduced on sides by erection of fresj walls Possession of the poitions of the shop, up to which the access could be had by the bailiff, was taken over and handed over to the petitioner and the warrant of possession issued by this Court remained unexecuted in part because of the presence of brick wall in between and erection of walls on the sides.