KAMLESH Vs. BRAHMDUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a SCC Suit No. 71 of 1998 before the Judge Small Cause for arrears of rent, eviction and damages stating that shop in question was purchased by him from its earlier owner Ramvir Sharma vide sale-deed dtd. 1/9/1998. It was also stated in the plaint that the defendants/ petitioners are tenants of the shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs.800.00. In the aforementioned suit, written statement was filed denying the plaint allegations. In the written statement it was asserted that the house and shop of Ramvir Sharma was constructed over Khasra No. 799, however, in the suit filed by plaintiff there is no mention of Khasra No. 799 and there is also no mention of Khasra No. 799 in the sale-deed filed by plaintiff, as such, property is not identifiable and suit is liable to be dismissed. It was also asserted in the written statement that in the sale-deed property purchased by the plaintiff was shown as a vacant land. It was also asserted in the written statement that plaintiff was never in possession over the disputed shop and defendant No. 1 is a tenant of Ramveer Sharma since last 10 years and there was no subletting of the disputed shop to anyone. It was further asserted in the written statement that Ramvir Sharma had not executed any sale-deed in favour of plaintiff and the civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed being original suit No. 1247 of 1998 filed by petitioner No. 1 is still pending before the civil Court. It was also asserted that brother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 has also filed a civil suit being original suit No. 1078 of 1998 for cancellation of the aforementioned sale-deed. In the aforementioned SCC suit nine issues were framed by the trial Court and parties have adduced evidence in support of their case. The Judge Small Cause vide judgment and order dtd. 21/3/2023 decreed the aforementioned SCC suit. Against the judgment dtd. 21/3/2023, a revision under Sec. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was filed by the petitioner which was registered as SCC Revision No. 28 of 2023 before District Judge. Plaintiff-respondent filed an execution case in pursuance of the order of eviction and damages passed by the trial Court. The aforementioned execution case was registered as Execution Case No. 13 of 2023. In the aforementioned execution case Amin report was submitted on 3/4/2025 to provide police force in order to take possession of the disputed shop. Petitioners filed a petition Under Article 227 No. 1424 of 2025 for expediting the stay application pending in the SCC revision. The aforementioned petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 10/2/2025 staying the further execution proceeding for period of three months or till the disposal of SCC revision. The revisional Court vide judgment and order dtd. 6/8/2025 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Hence this petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief:

(3.) This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties on 22/9/2025 passed the following order: