JANARDAN SINGH JAISWAL Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of orders dated 5.4.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mirzapur in Misc. Case No. 34 of 1986, Janardan Singh Jaiswal v. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, allowing the application under Order XXI Rule 96, C.P.C. and directing a copy of the sale certificate to be affixed on the house in question and to declare that the interest of the judgment debtor has been vested in Sri Janardan Singh Jaiswal, and the order dated 21.9.2001 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 3), Mirzapur, dismissing the Civil Revision No. 19 of 1997, arising out of the order.

(2.) I have heard Sri A. P. Srivastava for petitioner and Sri S. P. Pandey for respondent No. 3.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are, that the property in dispute was auctioned in Execution case No. 58 of 1983, for executing the money decree in Suit No. 4 of 1982. The sale was confirmed on 15.3.1986 and a sale certificate was issued on 4.4.1986 in favour of petitioner Sri Janardan Singh Jaiswal. The Auction Purchaser, filed an application under Order XXI, Rules 95 and 96 read with Section 151 for delivery of possession of the property purchased by him in auction. An objection was filed by Sri Surendra Pratap Singh stating that he is in occupation of the house with his family for last twenty years. The house was allotted to him by the administrator appointed by the High Court of the properties of M/s. Indo Mineral Corporation. This firm was a family firm of the objector and that after the dissolution of the firm he continued as a tenant of the property. Thereafter a partition took place between the landlord Sri Janardan Singh Jaiswal and Madhusudan Singh. They filed a suit for eviction against the objector under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was dismissed. An appeal arising out of eviction proceeding was also dismissed, and the objector continued to be a tenant. The decree was obtained and property was purchased behind his back, and in the circumstances auction purchaser cannot be given actual possession, and that only symbolic possession can be given to him under Order XXI Rule 96, C.P.C. In his reply the decree holder denied in his reply that the objector was a tenant or is paying rent. The property purchased in auction was part of property taken on rent by M/s. Indo Mineral Corporation.