MANJU DEVI Vs. PREM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 (Act - for short) against the order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gurgaon whereby the objections of the objector-petitioner against the execution of the decree for possession in respect of the demised premises have been summarily dismissed.

(2.) THE landlord - Prem Parkash (respondent No. 1) filed a petition for ejectment of his tenant - late Shri Shiv Lal under Section 13 of the Act. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, the tenant Shiv Lal died and his LRs. - Shri Chand, Darshan Lal, Naresh (respondents No. 2 to 4) and Smt. Jagni Devin (since deceased) were impleaded as his LRs. on 3.1.2000. The ejectment petition filed by the landlord (respondent No. 1) was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. However, on appeal filed by the landlord, the same was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2003. The tenants were directed to vacate the premises within a period of 60 days. They then filed a revision petition in this Court which was also dismissed and they were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 31.3.2005. The tenants then preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. However, they were granted four months' time from 15.4.2005 to vacate the premises and till then the order of eviction was not to be executed. This was subject to the condition that the tenants file a prescribed undertaking. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gurgaon, in her order, has observed that it had not come on the record that the tenants complied with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 15.4.2005 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or that they had filed an undertaking regarding compliance of the condition. The period of four months within which the order of eviction was not to be executed has since expired and the order of ejectment has become executable.

(3.) THEREFORE , the DH was not entitled to take possession from the objector. The objections of the petitioner were contested by the DH-respondent. It was stated that the right to claim tenancy by inheritance was not a separate right and any one or all the LRs. of the deceased could defend the case. Besides, by the presence of the sons and widow of the deceased, Shiv Lal, the estate and tenancy rights were duly represented. It is also stated that the LRs. of the deceased - Shiv Lal had filed a revision against the order of the learned Appellate Authority in this Court which was dismissed. Thereafter, SLP was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. The ejectment order had attained finality and was not liable to be challenged.