RAKESH GUPTA Vs. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Executing Court as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal declining the prayer of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. Maheshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act have been filed by the petitioner on 18th August, 1988 and till the objections of the petitioner are decided the Executing Court was bound to protect the possession of the petitioner. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has contended that so many hearings have taken place before the Executing Court, evidence was led as per the orders passed by the Executing Court to adjudicate upon the objections filed by the petitioner and, therefore, till the evidence is concluded, objections are decided, the possession of the petitioner has to be protected. In support of his contention Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has cited Sh. Chhottay and another Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yasin and others 1977 (2) RCJ 537 Vidyawanti Vs. Taken Dass and another 1974 (6) RCR 47, 1998 (1) RCR 454. In support of his contention that the order of eviction is not binding on a person who claims an independent right in the tenanted premises, Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has cited Vidyawanti Vs. Taken Dass and another (supra). For the similar proposition learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon 1998 (2) CCC 873.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. G.N. Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/decree holder contended that power to grant stay are discretionary. The decree holder can not be made to suffer if frivolous objections are filed by a third party. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the order of grant of stay is analogous to the provisions of order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. It is for the objector to establish that he has got a prima-facie case in his favour. Only then the Executing Court may refrain from executing the decree. Mr. Aggarwal has contended that in every case where objections are filed, it will not be a matter of rule that stay must follow. In support of his contention, Mr. Aggarwal has cited Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ranjit Kaur 29 (1986) DLT 390, Bato Krishna Damani (dead) by his LRs Vs. Kailash Chand Srivastava & Another JT 1995 (1) SC 132 Harijan Wood Workers Production-cum-sales Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. Maya Wati and another AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 181 Smt. Usha Jain and others Vs. Manmohan Bajaj and others AIR 1980 Madhya Pradesh 146 I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.