SANTOKH SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 30.12.1974, an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller in favour of Santokh Singh landlord against Amar Singh tenant. The landlord took out execution. The tenant took various objections and the main objection was that he had delivered possession of the premises to the decree-holder on 5.1.1975 in the presence of Avtar Singh brother of the landlord and the averment of the landlord, that when the ballif went to deliver possession to him the tenant made protest, was wrong because the possession had already been delivered. Receipt Exhibit 0.1 dated 5.1.1975 is produced in record by the tenant is support of the aforesaid objection. This receipt is not signed by Santokh Singh landlord although it is signed by Avtar Singh as an attesting witnesses. Thereafter, the landlord took the plea that the tenant had delivered possession to Avtar Singh and not to him and, therefore, the warrants of arrest should be issued against the tenant as well as against Avtar Singh. To the execution, Avtar Singh filed objections on which a Local Commissioner was appointed. By order dated 30.10.1981, the objections of Avtar Singh were rejected and it was held that the ejectment order had not been complied with as the tenant had not delivered possession to the landlord. It was further categorically held that the delivery of possession by the tenant to Avtar Singh was neither a compliance of the ejectment order, nor was in accordance with law. The story of delivery of possession to the landlord vide Exhibit 0.1 was rejected by the Court below. Accordingly, warrants of possession were issued against Avtar Singh who was in actual physical possession at that time. Avtar Singh remained content with that order and, therefore, that order became final against him. The execution proceeded, However, by the impugned order 22.1.1983, the execution application was consigned to the record room on the ground that the ballif had visited the spot on 21.1.1983 who reported that the shop had been demolished and only Khola (building in a dilapidated condition) was in existence and since corpus of the demised premises had ceased to exist, the execution application had become infructuous. It was further concluded that the possession of the site could not be delivered to the decree-holder as ejectment order was not passed about the site. Regarding the demolition of the shop, the decree-holder was advised to claim damages in separate proceedings. Against the aforesaid order, the landlord decree-holder has come to this Court in this revision.

(2.) INITIALLY I had allowed the revision of the landlord on 9.11.1983 ex parte as the tenant had not put in appearance but later on, the tenant filed an application that he was not served with the revision and, therefore, exparte order was recalled and the matter has again been posted for hearing.

(3.) THERE is obvious collusion between Amar Singh and Avtar Singh because in the Court below the stand of Avtar Singh was also that he is a co-owner with Santokh Singh decree-holder and, therefore, since he is in possession as such, no execution can proceed. It appears that Amar Singh is continuing in possession by himself or through avtar Singh and the filing of objections by them is to delay the execution and to deprive Santokh Singh from its possession. This cannot be permitted in law after their objections have been disallowed.