NIRMAL SINGH Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Sarup (respondent herein) sought ejectment of his tenant, Nirmal Singh (Petitioner herein ). The Rent Controller vide his order dated 19-7-1978, ordered ejectment of the tenant This order was affirmed in appeal. The tenant impugned the order of ejectment in revision before this Court, but the revision petition was also dismissed. In execution, an objection was raised by the tenant that order cannot be executed as the same had become infructuous and illegal. The challenge to the order was that the landlord was no more the owner of the property. The Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, is the owner of the property in dispute. To prove this, order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 14-11-1979, Exhibit OW-3/3, was brought on the record. Vide this order, allotment of the site in favour of the landlord was cancelled. The appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. The order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged by way of writ petition, but that too was dismissed by this Court. The orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Financial Commissioner and dismissal of the writ petition, were held to be of no consequence as the executing Court was of the view that the tenant is not entitled to deny the relationship of his landlord as against Ram Sarup. Consequently, objection petition was dismissed. Order dismissing the objection petition is being impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that order of ejectment against the petitioner is not executable as allotment of the house in favour of the respondent has already been cancelled. He cited a judgment of this Court in Ram Sarup and Ors. v. Kasturi Lal, 1981 (1) R. L. R. 148, to contend that the petitioner was competent to make objections against his anticipated dispossession.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner is estopped from disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. He is not entitled to restrain the respondent from executing the order of ejectment, which was passed by a Court.