SEWA SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 23.09.2010 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana by which objection filed by the Petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short " Code of Civil Procedure "], has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] seeking eviction of the Petitioner/tenant from the demised premises, inter alia, on the grounds of arrears of rent, personal necessity and the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. However, the learned Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the Petitioner/tenant on 24.01.2005 on the ground of personal necessity which was challenged by the Petitioner/tenant before the Appellate Authority by way of appeal which was dismissed on 15.12.2008. When the landlord sought execution of order of ejectment, the Petitioner/tenant filed objection under Section 47 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, on the ground that according to the landlord he had let out two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and latrine and the tenant had encroached upon the third room in respect of which eviction was sought and has been allowed by the Courts below despite the fact that in respect of the said third room, which has been allegedly encroached upon by the Petitioner/tenant, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to order eviction of the Petitioner/tenant. It was alleged that the execution before the learned Rent Controller is not maintainable in terms of Section 17 of the Act because the order of the learned Rent Controller becomes a decree and can be executed by a Civil Court only having jurisdiction in the area. During the pendency of the objections, CR No. 1822 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner/tenant against the orders of eviction passed by the Courts below was also decided by this Court on 20.08.2010, therefore, the tenant filed his additional objections under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure that the order dated 24.01.2005 of the learned Rent Controller and order dated 15.12.2008 of the learned Appellate Authority have merged in the order of the High Court dated 20.08.2010, but the order of the High Court is a nullity as it does not fulfill the mandatory requirements and is in contravention of Section 13 of the Act, therefore, the same cannot be executed.

(3.) On the other hand, in reply to the objections filed before the learned Rent Controller, it was alleged by the landlord that all the objections, which are now being taken up in execution, were taken and rejected by the Courts below and the Petitioner/tenant cannot be allowed to raise all these objections again in execution in the garb of Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure and that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant was not raised before the learned Rent Controller and was rather taken up before the learned Appellate Authority by seeking amendment in the written statement which was dismissed on 08.05.2008, against which tenant had filed a revision petition which was dismissed on 30.07.2008 which had become final between the parties, therefore, it cannot be re-agitated. The learned Rent Controller/Executing Court dismissed the objections filed under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure by observing that objection qua the non-maintainability of execution before the Rent Controller in terms of Section 17 of the Act is not maintainable because the Rent Controller, while executing the order of eviction as a decree, is exercising the powers of Civil Court and all the objections which are now being taken in respect of the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to pass the eviction order were even though available before the revisional Court yet the same were not raised, rather the time was sought to vacate the demised premises.