RAMESH KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') is an illustration of the proverb that the pains of the decree-holder start at the stage of execution. This is the third round of litigation initiated by the judgment debtor-petitioner. This time challenge is to the order dated 4.5.2004 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurdaspur, dismissing the objections raised by the judgment debtor-petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'). Earlier objections filed by him under Section 47 of the Code were dismissed on 3.4.2001 and that order was upheld by this Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the decree holder-respondents filed an ejectment petition against the judgment debtor-petitioner which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur on 11.1.1995. However, on appeal, the Appellate Authority ordered ejectment of the judgment debtor-petitioner on 16.12.1997 on the ground that the judgment debtor-petitioner was the sub- tenant and was liable to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting. Civil Revision No. 832 of 1998 was filed in this Court by the judgment debtor- petitioner and the view taken by the Appellate Authority was upheld by this Court on 2.11.1999. I have perused the judgment dated 2.11.1999 passed by this Court. It shows that the petitioner had set up receipts (Exs.R.1 to R.3 therein) to establish that he was a tenant under Ms. Veena Nanda, the earlier landlord. These receipts were found to be forged.

(3.) THE decree-holder respondents filed execution against the judgment debtor- petitioner which was opposed by filing detailed objections under Section 47 of the Code. It was alleged that after the passing of the order of ejectment and upheld by this Court in CR. No. 832 of 1998 decided on 2.11.1999, one of the decree holders Ashok Kumar is alleged to have entered into a compromise with the judgment debtor-petitioner on 31.5.2000. A fresh rent note was alleged to have been executed by Ashok Kumar in favour of the judgment debtor-petitioner on 31.5.2000 enhancing the rate of rent from Rs. 27/- to Rs. 500/-. On 3.4.2001, the afore-mentioned objection petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 2(i) of the Code are mandatory in character. On facts the judgment debtor-petitioner had taken the stand that Ashok Kumar one of the decree-holder respondents has executed a rent note in his favour dated 31.5.2000 and had also issued a receipt of rent of Rs. 500/-. To prove both facts a photocopy of a deed writer register showing signature of Ashok Kumar and a receipt of rent duly signed by Ashok Kumar were produced. In para 5 of the order, the ld. executing Court noticed the stand of the decree-holder-respondent categorically denying execution of any rent note on 31.5.2000 or the rent receipt. The order passed by the executing Court was challenged before this Court in C.R. No. 2411 of 2001 which was also dismissed on 20.2.2000 upholding the order of the executing Court. Reliance was placed on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Badami Devi v. Sagar Sharma, 2000(1) CCC 1 and Sultana Begam v. Prem Chand Jain, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 8 (SC) : 1997(1) SCC 373, for holding that an uncertified payment of money or adjustment in lieu of the decree which is not recorded by the Court under Order XXI Rule 2(i) of the Code cannot be recognised by the executing Court. The only enquiry which the executing Court could make is to find out whether the plea taken on its face value amounts to adjustment or satisfaction of the decree wholly or in part and whether such adjustment or satisfaction had effect of extinguishing the decree to that extent. As no certificate was obtained from the executing Court with regard to adjustment of the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority as upheld by this court in CR. No. 832 of 1998 decided on 2.11.1999 the plea taken by the judgment-debtor-petitioner was rejected.