SABIR KHAN @ BILLU Vs. NAUSHAD AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Revision No. 33 of 2014, whereby revision filed by the present petitioner was dismissed upholding the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Naushad Ahmad, plaintiff/respondent, herein, had filed OS No. 414 of 1994 against Jalil Lohar and three others in the Court of Munsif, Dehradun for ejectment of the defendants from the suit property mentioned at the foot of the plaint saying that plaintiff/respondent, herein, was the owner/landlord of the suit property; open piece of land (suit property) was let out to the defendants/third party and their tenancy was terminated by the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 1.11.1994, however, even after expiry of the period of statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, defendants failed to handover possession of the suit property. Suit was hotly contested by the defendants/third party saying that defendants were protected under UP Act No. 13 of 1972 and their tenancy could not have been terminated by issuance of the simple notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Suit was, however, decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2001.

(3.) DEFENDANTS /third party, thereafter, preferred first appeal before District Court, which too was dismissed by ADJ/FTC I on 22.11.2011. Defendants, thereafter, preferred second appeal before this Court, which too was dismissed on 9.5.2013. Plaintiff, thereafter, approached the Executing Court for execution of the decree passed in OS No. 414 of 1994, as upheld by this Court in second appeal. During the execution, present petitioner preferred objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC saying that objector/petitioner, herein, is in actual physical possession of the part of the suit property as shown in the map annexed with the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 shown as quarter in possession of the objector, therefore, since the objector/petitioner/herein, was not a party in suit, he cannot be dispossessed/ evicted in the garb of decree passed in OS No. 414 of 1994. Decree holder/respondent, herein, contested the objections so filed. Objections were dismissed by the learned Executing Court, vide judgment and order dated 3.4.2014. Feeling aggrieved, objector/petitioner, herein, preferred Civil Revision 33 of 2014, which too came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2014. Feeling aggrieved, objector/petitioner, herein, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.