SUDERSHAN SEWA TRUST AMRITSAR Vs. VISHNU PROCESSORS AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of directions to the executing Court i.e. the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar to decide the execution petition bearing EXE No.80 of 2021, titled as M/s. Sudershan Sewa Trust V/s M/s. Vishnu Processors.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon an eviction petition preferred by the petitioner (Sudarshan Sewa Trust, Amritsar) under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, eviction order was passed on 20/8/2014 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the respondent on 6/10/2014. Vide order dtd. 27/7/2015 (Annexure P-2), the operation of the eviction order was stayed and mesne profits @ 4.5 per sq. ft. per month which came to Rs.2,13,145.00 per month were fixed. A revision petition was preferred by the tenant against the said order and vide order dtd. 3/2/2016 (Annexure P-3), this Court modified the order dtd. 27/7/2015 and fixed the mesne profits @ 3.50 p. per sq. ft. per month. Since the tenants failed to comply with the said order, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dtd. 2/2/2017 (Annexure P-4). Ultimately, the appeal preferred against the eviction order was dismissed-in- default vide order dtd. 20/9/2019 (Annexure P-5). A restoration application was filed against the said order, which was allowed but again, on account of non-appearance of respondent No.1, the appeal was dismissed-in-default on 15/12/2018 (Annexure P-6). He submits that yet another application for restoration has been preferred which is pending.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that execution petition was preferred by the petitioner in May 2021 and since then, the same is being adjourned without any valid reason. He submits that third party objections filed by an alleged subsequent purchaser are also pending and as on date, the outstanding amount of mesne profits is approximately Rs.2.00 crores, which the tenant is neither paying nor is the execution petition proceeding. He submits that under the circumstances, the rights and interests of the petitioner have been gravely impaired. Learned counsel submits that directions be issued to the concerned executing Court to decide the execution petition in a time bound manner. Learned counsel places reliance upon the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rahul S. Shah V/s Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, 2021(2) RCR (Civil) 854.