SAT PAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Om. Parkash-respondent filed a petition for the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises under the provisions of the East' Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ejectment petition was accepted and the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be ejected on February 8, 1983. Against this order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Shri T.S. Cheema, District Judge, Gurdaspur, who was the Appellate Authority. At the appellate stage, the parties arrived at a compromise. Their statements were recorded on 19.3.1984. According to the compromise, the petitioner-tenant was not to be evicted in execution of the ejectment order for a period of 1-1/2 years from the date when their statements were recorded. It was further agreed that the parties would abide by the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner before whom a dispute between them in regard to the demised property was also pending and in case the stay order granted by the Chief settlement Commissioner continued for a period beyond 1-1/2 years, the petitioner-tenant would not be evicted till such stay order remained in operation. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as withdrawn vide his order dated 19.3.1984. An application for execution of the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller was then filed on 4.11.1985 and on notice being issued to the petitioner-tenant, the latter filed his objections under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 4.12.1985 and it is this order which his been impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) The dispute between the parties which was pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner was disposed of by the latter vide his order dated October 22, 1984 on a preliminary issue without deciding the dispute on merits. His order was then challenged by the petitioner before, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab and finally the matter was brought to this Court in Civil Writ Petition 1164 of 1988. The revision petition was ordered to be heard along with the said writ petition. When these cases were taken up for hearing by this Court on 14.9.1990, Civil Writ petition 1164 of 1988 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits. This revision petition was, however, kept pending to be decided after the decision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the directions of this Court has now by his order dated 15.4.1991 decided the dispute between the parties holding that the property in dispute is individual and cannot be divided amongst the claimants and that there was no material defect in the publication of the auction in which the property in dispute was purchased by Om Parkash landlord.

(3.) Not that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has finally settled the dispute between the parties there is not merit in this revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The terms of the compromise between the parties have been implemented and no fault can be found with the impugned order of the executing Court dismissing the objection petition. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.