HARDEV SINGH Vs. HARVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The operative order is already pronounced. The following are the reasons for the order.

(2.) This petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be a tenant of a room in House No. J. - 119, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Before the Appellate Court a map was produced for identifying the disputed room. On 14-12-1981 I had called all the concerned parties and have passed an order correctly identifying the room. There is no dispute amongst the parties now as to which room in the said house is the subject-matter of this petition.

(3.) For appreciating the complicated facts of the litigations between the parties with which we are concerned in this petition it is necessary to know their relationship. The house in question is owned by Gurcharan Singh, Respondent No 3. Respondent No. 1 Harvinder Singh is his son. He claims that under the certain family arrangement the disputed room and the other adjoining room were given to his share as an owner. The petitioner, Hardev Singh claiming to be the tenant of the said room under Hardev Singh, is the brother-in-law of Harvinder Singh, that is the brother of Gurdial Singh's wife. Gurdial Singh is the brother of Harvinder Singh Respondent No. 2, Kimat Singh is the tenant who is inducted in the said room by Gurcharn Singh. Warrants of possession of the said room are issued by the courts below in favour of Kimat Singh. Feeling aggrieved by the said warrants of possession and fearing that he would be dispossessed. Hardev Singh has moved the petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. This is a typical case, where by multiplicity of proceedings, the attempts are made by the landlords and their relations to thwart the warrants of possession (by way of restitution) passed in favour of the tenant by competent court below.