NASREEN Vs. HARI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order is dated 04.11.2011. The objections filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the Objector Nasreen against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2009 had been dismissed. This was after trial and after evidence had been led by the respective parties.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present suit has been filed by Hari Kishan against Maqsood Ali. He was the sole defendant. This was a suit for possession. It had been decreed in faovur of the decree holder. This was on 11.11.2009. The objections came to be filed by the present petitioner namely Nasreen on 15.07.2010. Contention in the objection petition is that the Objector was inducted as a tenant by Smt. Sunita wife of Narender at which time the Objector had also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as security which was a refundable amount; no rent receipt had been issued; previous owner Sunita had sold this property on 19.04.2006 to the decree holder Hari Kishan and the Objector had become a tenant under Hari Kishan i.e. new purchaser. Admittedly no document of proof showing her as tenant in the aforenoted premises has been placed on record in the course of evidence which was led before the executing Court to prove her objections. This has also been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. Contention of the Objector that the rent receipts were not being issued; on a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the alleged tenant/objector has any other proof of her status as tenant in the aforenoted property i.e. telephone bill, electricity connection (as her contention is that she is living in the suit premises since the year 2005), no such document is available with the objector. Further contention in the objection petition is that one Anil a Court Bailiff had come in April, 2010 to execute the warrants of attachment at which time alone the objector learnt about this decree dated 11.11.2009 and the present objections were accordingly filed. Attention has been drawn to the documents which have been filed and proved in the court below. These are Ex. OW-1/A, Ex. OW-1/B, Ex. OW-1/C and Ex. OW-1/D. These four documents merely mentioned the name of Nasreen and at one place the names of two persons namely Nazia and Fareen have been mentioned as daughters of Alim Ahmed; this is on their election card; nothing else can be depicted from the aforenoted documents i.e. to establish the vehement submission urged in the objection petition that the objecotor/Nasreen is a tenant in her individual capacity in the aforenoted premises.

(3.) IN this background, impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.