RATTAN KAUR Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the order of the executing Court dated 5.12.1991 dismissing the execution application filed by the landlady seeking the intervention of the Court to secure compliance with the order of the Appellant Authority, under the Rent Act, dated 27.7.1990.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application for eviction of her tenant, Surjit Singh, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The matter was taken in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, who vide his order dated 27.7.1990 recorded a compromise by which the petitioner agreed to deliver the tenant a specific portion of the demised premises on the ground floor within a period of six months from the date of that order. The respondent, however, did not comply with the order aforesaid, which led to the filing of an application for execution. The respondent contested the application by raising the plea that it was the petitioner, who had failed to comply with the terms of the order dated 27.7.1990 inasmuch as the vacant possession that was to be delivered to the respondent in terms of the compromise was not so delivered. It was further stated that as a matter of fact the portion that was to be given to him was in possession of one Jagan Nath and when the petitioner made an effort to dispossess him forcibly, he filed a civil suit, in which the Sub Judge Ist Class, Dasuya, passed an order on 23.1.1991 of status quo regarding possession over the disputed property. The respondents, however, admitted that petitioner had served a noticed dated 21.1.1991, which was received by him on 31.1.1991, calling upon him to comply with the order dated 27.7.1990 and went on to say that reply had been sent by him on 6.2.1991.

(3.) MR . K.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the executing Court was deeply influenced by the fact that the petitioner was not in a position to hand over vacant possession of the premises to Surjit Singh as Jagan Nath had obtained an order of statuse quo with respect to the same premises on 23.1.1991. In this connection, he had pointed out that Jagan Nath himself made a statement in the Civil Court that he had vacated the house on 23.2.1991 and after that date the premises had never been in his possession and it was on this basis that the civil suit, filed by him was got dismissed. Mr. Cheema has, therefore, urged that the proceedings initiated by Jagan Nath, who is also an employee of the Excise and Taxation Department along with the respondent, were at the instance of the respondent in order to frustrate the order dated 27.7.1990.