PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. SURINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Niranjan Singh s/o Datta Singh was the sole owner of House Nos. 1062 -63, Mohalla Gobindpura, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh measuring 800 Sq. yards. On 18.1.1988, Niranjan Singh entered into an agreement to sell his house with Surinder Singh (respondent No. 1) and Sheel Kumar (respondent No. 2) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,84,000/ - and received an advance of Rs. 36,000/ - by way of receipt dated 18.1.1988 and fixed the date for execution and registration of sale deed as 28.2.1988. The said time was extended upto 15.3.1988 on the asking of the defendant -Niranjan Singh by way of a writing but despite notice issued by respondents No. 1 and 2 to Niranjan Singh to be present on 15.3.1988 before the Sub -Registrar for the purpose of execution and registration of sale deed, he did not come present, which led to filing of the Civil Suit No. 299 of 18.4.1988. Niranjan Singh appeared in the suit on 28.7.1988 through his Advocate, Harbhagwan Singh but failed to appear thereafter and was proceeded against ex parte. He died on 20.10.1988. Defendant No. 2 in her suit, namely, Rajinder Kaur, who claimed herself to be the wife of Niranjan Singh, filed an application to be impleaded in his place which was allowed on 22.10.1992 and the suit was decreed on 21.9.1998. Rajinder Kaur filed an application for eviction against the present appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short 'the Act'] alleging that he is in possession for the last five years as a tenant at the rent of Rs. 4,000/ - per month. The eviction petition was filed, inter alia, on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent, change of uses, nuisance and personal necessity. In the said petition, the appellant herein appeared on 22.4.1998 but after availing sufficient opportunities, did not choose to file written statement and his evidence was ultimately struck off on 24.10.1998.

(2.) RAJINDER Kaur had also filed Civil Appeal No. 74 of 3.11.1998 against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 21.9.1998 passed in favour of respondents No. 1 & 2 in the suit for specific performance. The said appeal was dismissed on 1.9.2001. Rajinder Kaur then filed RSA No. 3860 of 2003 which was also dismissed on 22.8.2003 and in the Special Leave Petition filed by Rajinder Kaur against the order dated 22.8.2003, Balwinder Kaur, mother of Sarpinderjot Singh filed an application to become her legal representative because Rajinder Kaur had died on 18.11.2003 but the said SLP was also dismissed on 3.7.2006. The eviction petition filed by Rajinder Kaur was allowed on 7.4.2001 but the rent appeal No. 8 filed by the present appellant against the order of eviction dated 7.4.2001 was set aside vide order dated 4.5.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh on the ground that Rajinder Kaur has failed to prove herself to be the wife of Niranjan Singh and had no locus Standi to file and maintain the eviction petition before the Rent Controller for seeking eviction of the appellant.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that many objections have been filed from time to time. In the execution of the decree dated 21.9.1998, Rajinder Kaur (defendant No. 2) filed objection claiming herself to be the owner of the property which was dismissed. Balwinder Kaur filed objection claiming herself to be owner on the basis of Will purported to have been executed by Rajinder Kaur which was dismissed on 10.1.2014. The said order has not been challenged. Third objection was filed by Sarpinderjot Singh, which was dismissed on 22.2.2014 and the Civil Revision No. 479 of 2015 was also dismissed on 4.2.2015 and the fourth objection has been filed by the present appellant claiming himself to be a tenant in the property in dispute.