RAVI PARKASH Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two Execution Second Appeals Nos. 258 and 259 of 1965 filed by Ravi Parkash and Sulekh Chand against Surjit Singh, Jagat Singh and others. A few facts relevant for their disposal may be stated here. Som parkash and Shashi Kant owned two shops situate in Panipat. They had given one on rent to Chuni Lal and the other to Milkhi Ram. They applied separately under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of these two tenants. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment of Chuni Lal on 15th October, 1959, and of Milkhi Ram on 28th August, 1959, Subsequently both of them sold the two shops on 13th October, 1960, by a regular registered deed, Exhibit D. H. /1, in favour of Ravi Parkash and Sulekh Chand but for reasons which are not patent on the record, no mention of these ejectment orders was made therein. The two vendees, the present appellants, applied for execution of the orders, of ejectment obtained by their vendors against Chuni Lal and Milkhi Ram. The numbers of these execution applications are 23 and 24 of 1962. Jagat Singh and Surjit Singh respondents caused obstructions to the delivery of possession of the two shops. The executing Court issued notices under Order 21, rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure to both these obstructionist who appeared before it and stated that they had not caused any obstruction to the execution of the orders of ejectment and that in fact they were in occupation of the two shops as tenants under Som Parkash and Shashi Kant. They further pleaded ignorance about the sale of the two shops in favour of Ravi Parkash and Sulekh Chand and added that even if there was any such transfer then also on this basis they could not seek execution of the orders of ejectment obtained by their vendors against milkhi Ram and Chuni Lal.

(2.) RAVI Parkash and Sulekh Chand, however, maintained that Jagat Singh was a subtenant under Chuni Lal and so was Surjit Singh under Milkhi Ram and that Som parkash and Shashi Kant had transferred all their rights, interests and title in the two shops in their favour which authorised them to execute the two orders of ejectment against their tenants.

(3.) THE executing Court framed the following issue :--Have Ravi Parkash and Sulekh Chand a right to apply for execution of the ejectment order? the court found this issue against the decree-holders and dismissed both their execution applications. Ravi Parkash and Sulekh Chand felt aggrieved from the above and preferred two separate appeals in the Court of the learned Senior subordinate Judge which were dismissed by him by his common order dated the 23rd December, 1964. It is this order which they have impugned before me.