NARESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KARTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the judgment-debtor, the challenge is to the order dated 11.6.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura which has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala on 18.10.2004.

(2.) THE respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and materially impairing the value and utility of the said shop. The petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 14.5.1994. Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the appellate authority by judgment dated 19.3.1996. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that petitioner-Naresh Kumar had not been able to prove the purchase of super- structure from Ranjit Singh, the original owner and the story put forth by him that he had taken on lease only the site underneath from Ranjit Singh was not true. The appellate authority concluded that Ranjit Singh had let out the super-structure to Naresh Kumar and that Ranjit Singh could not sub-let the site taken on lease by him from the Municipal Committee. The appellate authority held that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between Ranjit Singh and Naresh Kumar qua the super-structure and allowed the appeal and ordered Naresh Kumar to vacate the super-structure within two months from the date of the order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that no doubt, the executing court shall not go behind the decree under execution but that does not mean that it has no duty to find out the true effect of the decree. The counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Bhavan Vaja and others v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Masang and another, AIR 1972 SC 1371 to strengthen his submission and further submitted that in the present case, the executing court ought to have seen the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading upto the decree. According to the learned counsel, the land beneath the super- structure was allotted to the petitioner by the Municipal Committee, Rajpura after the same had been cancelled to Ranjit Singh because he was owner in possession of the land and the super-structure. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner on allotment of the land to him by the Municipal Committee, purchased the super-structure for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- from said Ranjit Singh and, therefore, the petitioner had become the absolute owner of the land and the super-structure.