KRISHAN KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed. In brief, the facts are that in the year 1966, premises measuring 73' x 33' were let out to one Harjeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. In the year 1981, there was some compromise between the landlord (appellant herein) and the tenant. Under that compromise, area measuring 9' x 33' was surrendered and the appellant let out that area to one Subhash Chander at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. On rest of the area, the tenant was allowed to remain as such at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Subsequently, the appellant filed an ejectment petition against the tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Controller. Appeal preferred by the tenant against that order was also dismissed. Tenant came to this Court in civil revision and on 1.9.1987, the same too was dismissed. At the time of dismissal of the revision petition, on the prayer made by the tenant, three months' time was given to him to vacate the premises. The tenant instead of vacating the premises, preferred Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which was finally dismissed on 18.12.1987. The tenant did not vacate the premises and, therefore, the appellant had to take recourse to execution. Before the possession could be delivered in execution of the warrants, Paramjit Singh (respondent herein) filed an application before the executing Court, contending therein that he has come into possession of the premises on the basis of rent-note dated 1.1.1988 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. He thus, made a prayer to the executing Court that execution be consigned to records. The said application was dismissed on 21.11.1988. Following is the concluding paragraph of the order :

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the suit filed by the respondent is nothing, but an abuse of process of the Court. As already noticed, order of ejectment was passed against the tenant and the same was affirmed by this Court in civil revision. At the time of dismissal of the revision petition by this Court, three months time was given to the tenant to deliver vacant possession of the premises. Instead of delivering vacant possession of the premises to the appellant, on the expiry of time granted by this Court for the purpose, obstructions were made by the tenant in order to retain possession. Tenant as well as the respondent filed objections before the executing Court. Objections of the respondent were dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed at the instance of the tenant. The trial Court instead of going into the genuineness of the rent-note and receipts, decreed the suit of the respondent on the ground that the respondent is in possession of the premises and cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. On appeal, the appellate Authority took no notice of the earlier litigation between the appellant and the tenant. As a matter of fact, in regard to earlier litigation, the appellate Authority commented that the same has no bearing on the present case as the respondent was not a party to the earlier litigation. The appellate Authority also drew adverse inference against the appellant for not examining the Expert for the purpose of getting his signatures compared on the rent-note and receipts. The orders of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Authority make a sad reading. Execution of the rent-note and receipts was denied by the appellant. In order to prove these documents, respondent engaged the services and hand-writing expert who took photographs of the disputed signatures for comparing the same with the standard signatures of the appellant. Neither the report was brought on record nor the Expert was examined by the respondent. The appellate Authority instead of drawing adverse inference against the respondent, drew the same against the appellant who consistently had been saying that these documents are forged ones, The alleged rent-note, Ex. P-1, is stated to have been scribed by one Lala Bhagwan Dass, petition-writer and attested by two witnesses namely Jang Raj and Chhinda. According to the respondent, the rent was paid on his behalf by Chhinda. However, Chhinda was not produced as a witness. Respondent in the first part of his statement, stated that he did not know Chhinda earlier, but in the later part, he stated that he was his representative and was collecting receipts of payment of rent from the appellant. The statement on the face of it, is self-contradictory. Otherwise, also, it cannot be believed that the appellant would let out the premises to him at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, particularly when a very small portion of the premises was let out in the year 1981, to one Subhash Chander at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The tenant as well as the respondent had been stalling the execution proceedings by filing one objection or the other. Having failed before the executing Court, the present suit was filed. From all these circumstances, it can safely be inferred that the rent-note and the receipts are forged and fictitious documents, which have been created only to defeat the right of the appellant in terms of ejectment order, which he successfully obtained after contest right upto the apex Court.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this Regular Second Appeal is allowed with costs and judgments and decree(s) of the Courts below are set aside. In consequences thereof, the suit shall stand dismissed. A direction is issued to the executing Court that if need be, it shall provide police help to the appellant for getting the possession. A direction is also issued to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar to get a case registered against the respondent as well as attesting witnesses of the rent note, including the petition-writer, who have colluded to forge the rent-note and the receipts. Costs are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal allowed.