(1.) Dr. Kewal Krishan filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') against his tenant-Rajinder Pal for his ejectment on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The ejectment application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 23.9.1987 and an order of ejectment was passed against a tenant. Being aggrieved of the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred appeal before the appellate authority.
(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, Dr. Kewal Krishan sold the property in favour of Shrimati Veena Rani, respondent No. 1. However, appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the appellate authority on 28.9.1989. Revision petition preferred by the tenant was also dismissed by this Court.
(3.) Dr. Kewal Krishan filed an execution application to execute the decree. Objections were filed by the tenant who took the plea that Rajinder Pal has no locus standi to execute the decree as he had already sold the property to Shrimati Veena Rani vide registered sale deed dated 15.3.1989. Reply to the said objections was filed by Shrimati Veena Rani but the counsel for the tenant took the plea that Shrimati Veena Rani had no right to file the reply to the objection petition as she is not a party to the execution proceedings. In order to overcome this objection, Shrimati Veena Rani filed an application for impleading her as a decree-holder in place of Dr. Kewal Krishan. The application was opposed on the ground that the property was sold during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority and as such appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass an order of ejectment. It was thus prayed that the application be dismissed as the decree cannot be executed. The trial Court, vide impugned order, allowed the application impleading Shrimati Veena Rani in place of Dr. Kewal Krishan. The tenant has impugned the said order by way of filing the present civil revision.