ANSAR ALI Vs. ZAHIRA SULTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated 2. 7. 2008 passed by the learned ARC whereby the objections of the petitioner were dismissed.

(2.) A decree for eviction was passed in the eviction petition No. E-88/97 against Syed Nazir Ali and Nawab Ali on 10. 2. 1999. Syed Nazir Ali had died on 6. 5. 1997 leaving behind five sons and seven daughters. Four sons of late Syed Nazir Ali filed a review application against the decree of eviction during pendency of the execution. This review application was considered as objections and the objections were dismissed by the ARC on 6. 11. 1999. This order of learned ARC was not challenged by four sons of late Syed Nazir Ali. Thereafter another set of objections were preferred by the two daughters of Syed ali. The same were dismissed by the learned ARC on 19. 4. 2003 on merits. This order was assailed before the learned ARC Tribunal. The learned ARCT vide its order dated 22. 9. 2005 dismissed the appeal as well as the prayer to lead the additional evidence. Against the order of Tribunal, daughters preferred a CM (M)No. 2939/2005, which was dismissed by this Court on 23. 11. 2005. After all these rounds of litigation by four sons and two daughters of late Syed Ali, another son of the deceased, who is petitioner herein filed fresh objections on similar grounds as taken by his sisters and these objections have been dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) THE petitioner took objections that the property was let out to his father for residential-cum-commercial purpose at monthly rent of Rs. 18/ -. The petitioner was not aware about the eviction order passed in 1999 and he came to know about eviction order and pending litigation on 20. 8. 2005. The property, in question, had become the enemy property after the partition and vested with the Custodian of Enemy Property and a fraud had been played upon late Syed Nazir ali, his father, by the petitioner (respondent herein ). It was submitted that once the property was declared as enemy property, no eviction order could be passed in respect of the same. The learned ARC considered all these objections and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not placed any document on record showing the property in question had become enemy property. The objections were frivolous and filed with mala fide intentions to delay the execution of the decree passed way back in 1999. Initially, four brothers of the present petitioner filed objections claiming that their father had become owner by adverse possession after those objections were dismissed, two daughters of the deceased tenant and sisters of the present petitioner had filed objections and the matter was carried right up to High Court and after they failed, the present petitioner had filed objections on the same grounds, which were considered by the Court earlier. The Court also concluded that the property was owned by the landlord by virtue of an award which was made rule of the Court by the High Court in 1980, which award has not been set aside till date by any forum. Custodian of enemy property had not passed any order declaring the property as enemy property, rather the documents were contrary to it and dismissed the objections of the petitioner with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -. The Court also dismissed application for leading evidence.