KRISHAN SINGH ARORA Vs. RAJ KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YESTERDAY , the matter was heard at length. I was, prima facie, satisfied that the application for review aside order dated 18.08.2001 was not filed in accordance with law.

(2.) I have now gone through the entire paper book. A perusal of the order dated 18.8.2001 shows that the revision petitioner concealed the order passed by the Appellate Authority staying further proceedings in the execution. The Learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on 17.4.2001. The respondent filed appeal against the aforesaid order on 15.05.2001. On 16.05.2001, the Appellate Authority stayed the execution proceedings, issued notice in the application for condonation of delay and the appeal for 11.06.2001. On that date, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner appeared in the Appellate Court and the matter was adjourned to 21.8.2001 and the order of stay granted on 16.05.2001 had been extended till 21.08.2001. Yet the revision petitioner filed an application for warrants of possession on 17.07.2001. In this application, it was no where mentioned that the appellate Authority has already stayed the execution proceedings. Thus by concealing material facts, the warrants of possession were got issued on 28.07.2001. Thereafter, the possession was taken forcibly on 14.08.2001. Consequently, the respondent was constrained to file an application on 16.08.2001 bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the executing Court. This application was allowed by a detailed order passed on 18.08.2001. In the meantime, the stay matter pending in the appeal also came to be decided on 30.08.2001 by the appellate Authority. On that date, the Court observed that "the mere fact that the appeal has been filed after some delay, is no ground to refuse stay in case, the facts and circumstances justify the same, especially when an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is yet to be decided on merits." The appellate Authority further ordered that eviction order shall be stayed subject to deposit of arrears of rent in the Court of learned Rent Controller by the next date. It may also be noticed, at this stage, that the order dated 18.08.2001 restoring the possession to the respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 4381 of 2001. It is a matter of record that no interim relief has been granted in the aforesaid Civil Revision. Faced with this situation, the revision petitioner adopted a novel course and sought recall of the very same order before the learned Rent Controller. This application has been dismissed by the order 01.02.2002. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) THE aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.