HARKAMAL Vs. VINOD BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kalawati (now deceased), predecessor in interest of respondent No. 1, had filed the ejectment petition against the present petitioner - Harkamal. It was pleaded in the application that she was landlord and Harkamal-petitioner was the tenant. He had failed to pay the arrears of rent, had sub-let the premises and had ceased to occupy the premises in question with effect from 1.4.1992 till date continuously, without any sufficient cause and therefore, was liable to be ejected.

(2.) Harkamal-petitioner filed the written reply and contested the ejectment petition. However, his tenancy under the landlord (Kalawati) was admitted. However, he denied if any arrears of rent were payable by him or if the demised premises was sublet in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 or if he has ceased to occupy the premises. Issues were framed. Parties led the evidence. The learned Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the ground of sub-letting was proved and accordingly, the ejectment order was passed against the petitioner by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 3.2.1998. This order has become final.

(3.) Kalawati filed the execution application. In the said execution application, objection was filed by one Ashwani Kumar s/o Amir Chand, under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, in which it was pleaded that actually he was the owner of that shop and Kalawati was not the owner. The said application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 7.12.2005. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by Harkamal-petitioner.