KULRAJ SINGH PAUL Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this Revision Petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Chandigarh, on January 14, 1981, in execution proceedings which had been launched by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenant. The facts may be, briefly, noticed.

(2.) In a petition for ejectment filed by the landlords, an ex parte order was passed by the Rent Controller on Nov. 3, 1977, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute, which is House No. 64, Section 16-A. Chandigarh. The petitioner was allowed fifteen days time to vacate the premises. However, he did not do so. The decree-holder-landlords then filed an execution application to enforce eviction of the petitioner on the basis of the ex parte decree. On April 12, 1980, warrants for the possession of the property were issued executable for June 5, 1980. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an objection petition under Section 47, read with Section 151, Civil P. C., impugning the execution of the decree against him on certain grounds. Inter alia, he pleaded that he had not been served in the ejectment proceedings. As noticed by the executing Court in the impugned order, it is common ground between the parties that after the passing of the ex parte eviction order, an application was moved by the petitioner under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil P. C. to set aside the aforesaid ex parte order, but the said application was dismissed for default on April 19, 1979. Some other proceedings between the parties for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute were also pending and in these proceedings the ejectment application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on May 21, 1976. The responders, however, went up in appeal, which was accepted with a finding that the tender of rent made by the petitioner was invalid, as the same had not been made on the first date of hearing. The petitioner was, therefore, ordered to be evicted in that case. However, he came up in Revision before this Court and on Oct. 3, 1977, an order was passed to the effect that if the petitioner deposited the arrears of rent by a certain date, the interim stay of dispossession granted to him shall stand confirmed. According to the petitioner, he deposited the rent due on the said date, i. e., Nov. 14, 1977. It also transpires that after the dismissal of the Revision Petition by the High Court, that matter went up to the Supreme Court and the petitioner obtained a stay of dispossession on the condition that he pays the arrears of rent to the landlords within two months from the date of the order.

(3.) In the objection petition, the plea of the petitioner-judgment-debtor is that he had paid the arrears of rent and has been paying the current rent regularly. As such, it is contended that the landlords are estopped by their conduct from continuing the execution proceedings. The stand of the respondent-landlords, however, is that the orders regarding stay of eviction passed by this Court and later on by the Supreme Court are applicable only to the case in which the said orders were passed. These orders would have no application to any other proceedings which may be pending against the petitioner separately. The executing Court went into the respective contentions of the parties and accepted the contention of the landlords and held that the stay granted by the Supreme Court had no bearing on the present execution proceedings which permitted to a different decree for ejectment passed against the petitioner. The objection petition was, therefore, dismissed. It is against this order of the executing Court, that the present Revision Petition has been filed.