M/S. PARKASH JEWELLERS Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by judgment-debtor (tenant-petitioner herein) challenging the order dtd. 27/3/2024 whereby three applications filed by it herein have been dismissed. The first application was for appointment of legal guardian/next friend of the decreeholder, Paramjit Kaur (landlord-respondent herein). The second application was for adjourning the matter sine die till such appointment. The third application was for permitting the tenant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent. Vide the impugned order dtd. 27/3/2024 all the applications filed by the tenant-petitioner were dismissed.

(2.) Before adverting to the present case, a few facts may be noticed. On 23/5/2014 Paramjit Kaur, landlord-respondent herein, filed an ejectment petition on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide personal necessity. It is apt to note that the property stands in the name of Paramjit Kaur. Vide order dtd. 19/1/2018 the Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent and fixed 19/3/2018 for payment of rent. The said order was challenged by the tenant-petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal vide order dtd. 1/9/2018. The said order was challenged in CR-7444-2018 before this Court. Meanwhile, an application was filed by the landlord-respondent for eviction of the tenant-petitioner on account of non-deposit of provisional rent. The same was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dtd. 19/4/2022. The said order dtd. 19/4/2022 was challenged before this Court by filing CR-2420-2022, which was allowed vide order dtd. 27/9/2023 and the tenant-petitioner herein was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the property within a period of three months along with arrears of rent and ancillary charges. SLP No.26947 of 2023 challenging the said order dtd. 27/9/2023 was filed by the tenant-petitioner which was dismissed vide order dtd. 14/12/2023. It is apt to note that all these proceedings were pursued by the landlordrespondent herself. On 15/1/2024 an execution petition was filed on behalf of Paramjit Kaur by her son, namely, Kulwinder Singh as next friend. On 26/2/2024 an application was filed by the tenant-petitioner for appointment of a legal guardian/next friend of the decree-holder Paramjit Kaur (landlordrespondent). Another application was filed for adjourning the execution sine die till appointment of a legal guardian and the third application was filed for giving permission to deposit the arrears of rent. All three applications were dismissed vide the impugned order dtd. 27/3/2024. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that as per provisions of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is incumbent on the Court to hold an enquiry as the landlordrespondent was not adjudged as a person of unsound mind. In support of his arguments he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Bai and Ors. vs. Anguri Chaudhary [2003(1) RCR (Civil) 765] and that of this Court in the cases of Dilbagh Singh vs. Sawinder Kaur [2011(13) RCR (Civil) 379], Pirthi Pal Singh vs. Jagtar Singh and Ors. [2019(3) PLR 144] and Harjinder Singh vs. Nachhattar Kaur [1991(2) RRR 499]. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would further contend that the application for adjourning the matter sine die and for depositing of rent have also been dismissed arbitrarily by the Executing Court.