LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-64

SUNIL AUTO SERVICE Vs. PARIKSHANT SURI

Decided On May 16, 2011
Sunil Auto Service Appellant
V/S
Parikshant Suri Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a third party whose objection petition in execution application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, against their tenant respondent No. 5, Ashok Kohli and respondent No. 6, Anil Kohli, has been dismissed by the executing Court vide order dated 20.07.2010. The appeal has also been dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 09.12.2010.

(2.) Brief admitted facts, relevant for the adjudication of present case are that Vinod Kumar Suri Landlord (now represented by his LRs respondent Nos. 1 to 3), of building constructed on Plot No. 120, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, had filed an ejectment petition against Ashok Kohli of M/s Kohli Auto Parts and Anil Kohli, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'), before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The ejectment application was allowed by Shri Ashok Kumar, Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 22.01.2001, but in appeal Shri R.S.Baswana, Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, vide order dated 04.05.2006, reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment application. However, the High Court in Civil Revision No. 5222 of 2006, decided on 20.05.2009, reversed the judgment of the appellate Authority in revision petition under Section 15(5) of the Rent Act and allowed the ejectment application, upholding the ground of personal necessity and subletting.

(3.) In the execution petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the appellant filed an objection petition claiming that M/s Sunil Auto Service, through its proprietor Sunil Kumar is in possession of portion of plot No. 120, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, as a tenant and the objector had taken on rent the said premises from Shri Vinod Kumar Suri deceased at a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/-, excluding water and electricity charges and the objector had been running its business under the name and style of M/s Sunil Auto Service, in the tenanted premises since 2001 being in possession of the premises as tenant. It was claimed that when the Balliff of the Court visited the tenanted premises of the objector on 02.09.2002, the objector came to know about the ejectment order having been passed against Ashok Kohli and Anil Kohli. On enquiry the objector came to know that Vinod Kumar Suri had filed a rent petition against Ashok Kohli and Anil Kohli, for their eviction from the premises in dispute. The litigation was not in his knowledge. The objector claims that he had been making payment of rent to Shri Vinod Kumar Suri. It was averred that the possession of the objector in the premises was legal as tenant and as such, he could not be dispossessed in execution of an ejectment order passed in rent petition in which the objector was not made a party. Ashok Kohli and Anil Kohli had not informed the objector that the decree holder had filed an application for ejectment in respect of the premises in dispute and on the other hand they have not contested the case seriously and their counsel did not argue the revision petition in the High Court. It was argued that the revision petition had been decided without arguments on their behalf as they were not in possession of the premises in dispute and that they connived with landlords and did not take any interest in the case. The objector claims that he has been a tenant in three rooms in plot No. 120, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh and in the petition addresses of both the JDs are not of the premises which indicate that they were not in possession of the premises in dispute. The objector claims that he could not be evicted in execution of an eviction order dated 22.01.2001, affirmed by the High Court in revision petition, on 20.05.2009.