GIRDHARI LAL Vs. GURDIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Executing Court dated 25.01.2016 dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 to 6 filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on various grounds. One of the grounds was that originally the shop in dispute had a verandah, height of the roof of the shop was 8 feet, the roof of the shop was made of wooden rafters and there was a temporary roof of bamboos on the verandah portion. However the petitioner-tenant broke the roofs of the shop and the verandah and consolidated both of them into one unit, raised the height of roof to 13 feet and put a pucca roof with a shutter. To prove the effect of this material impairment of value, the respondents No.1 to 6 placed on record two site plans to illustrate the differences. It may be mentioned here that otherwise there was no dispute about the identity of the shop which was in the possession of the petitioner. The Rent Controller passed the eviction order and gave the relief in the following terms:-

(3.) It is clear that for the purpose of identification of the premises in dispute it would have been enough to mention the address i.e. Unit No.BIV-II-101, bounded as North shop with verandah, opposite Civil Court Complex, Batala and the further addition of the particulars of the plans was only by way of abundant caution, since as mentioned above the identity of the premises in dispute was not disputed by the petitioner. Ultimately the respondents No.1 to 6 filed an execution application in respect of the premises in dispute. In my opinion, in that execution application it would have been enough to give the detailed address of the shop which has been extracted above but again by way of abundant caution, the landlords annexed the site plans. The petitioner-tenant filed the objections to the effect that the site plans which had been placed by the said respondents was unproven documents and therefore the execution could not be carried out.