SURINDER KAUR Vs. INDERJIT SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated July 29, 1983, whereby the objection petition filed on behalf of the judgment-debtors petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) INDERJIT Singh Sethi, decree-holder filed the application for ejectment against Prem Singh and Harbhajan Singh alleging them to be the tenants on the demised premises, which were purchased by him vide sale deed dated April 9, 1974, Exhibit A.3. The ejectment application was filed by him on August 5, 1977. The eviction order therein was passed by the Rent Controller on August 31, 1978. The said order was set aside in appeal filed by Prem Singh vide judgment, Exhibit O.2, dated December 20, 1978, by the Appellate Authority. It was held by the Appellate Authority that the landlord Inderjit Singh Sethi had failed to prove that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

(3.) ACCORDING to the executing Court, the decree-holder being the transferee from the original owners who had already obtained the ejectment order against the objectors could execute the same against them. This approach of the executing Court is wholly illegal and misconceived. The matter would have been different if no independent proceedings were taken by Inderjit Singh Sethi against the objectors. Having taken independent proceedings against them and having failed therein he could not resort to the earlier order passed in favour of the Punjab Co-operative Bank, Amritsar. The learned counsel for the objectors was unable to justify the order passed by the executing Court. The learned counsel only referred to the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pallapothu Narasimha Rao v. K. Radhakrishnamacharyulu, AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 319. The said case has absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case. Therein, the provisions of Order 21I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, were made applicable to the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960). Such is not the position in the present case. In the first instance, the decree passed in favour of the Punjab Co-operative Bank was never transferred as such in favour of the decree-holder Inderjit Singh Sethi and in any case, even if it be assumed that it was transferred, even then, having failed in the independent proceedings taken by him, he was debarred from executing the earlier order.