RAMAN KUMAR NANDA Vs. KANWAL NAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition filed by the petitionertenant is to the order dated 27.1.2015 (Annexure P/7) whereby the application for permission to deposit Rs. 26,656/- as per order dated 3.2.2012(Annexure P/3) was declined and prayer for extension of time for the compliance of order under Section 148 CPC was rejected by the Executing Court, Pathankot. Challenge is also laid to the order passed of even date (Annexure P/8) whereby warrants of possession have been issued for 7.3.2015 by holding that the Rent Controller, Pathankot has no jurisdiction to extend the time once the ejectment order was passed especially since no appeal or revision has been filed against the main order.

(2.) It is not disputed that conditional ejectment order was passed against the petitioner-tenant on 3.3.2012 by the Rent Controller, Pathankot. The petitioner-tenant was held to be in arrears of rent of Rs. 26,656/- for the period 1.4.1996 to 21.2.2004 which was to be paid within two months from the said date. The operative part of the order reads as under:-

(3.) The said order was not complied with and an application dated 19.4.2012 (Annexure P/4) was filed on the ground that time may be given to deposit the amount on account of illness of the petitioner as he was suffering from Typhoid. The medical certificate was also appended along with the said application in support. The same was contested on the ground by filing reply on the ground that the Court has become functuous officio and valuable right had accrued to the landlord. The factum of the medical treatment was also denied. After a period of more than almost 2-1/2 years, an application was filed before the Executing Court for permission to deposit the said amount on 5.9.2014 which was allowed and the rent was deposited on 5.9.2014 vide challan Annexure P/5 (colly). The Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot keeping in view the judgments of this Court in Sudhir Kumar Vs. Kuldip Singh Malhotra, 2011 3 RCR(Civ) 758 and Prem Singh Vs. Joginder Kaur, 2012 2 RCR(Civ) 110 dismissed the application on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time once the ejectment order had been passed. As noticed, the warrants of possession were also issued in the execution petition filed by the respondent-landlord on the same reasoning.