NIRMAL SINGH Vs. BALWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 21st May, 1986, the revision of Nirmal Singh was dismissed and the Executing Court was directed to get the possession of the premises delivered to the landlady within a fortnight of the order. On 4.6.1986, review application was filed by Nirmal Singh and the main ground was that there was a wrong statement of fact in the order of this Court. At that time this Court was on vacation. Along with the review application there was an application for stay, which came up for hearing on 6.6.1986 and the Vacation Judge granted stay of dispossession in view of the statement of fact that the suit of Harbax Singh Sibia is still pending and is fixed for 21.7.1986.

(2.) THE statement of fact contained in third paragraph of my order dated 21.5.1986, which is to the following effect was passed on the statement made in Court by Shri B.S. Guliani, Advocate, counsel for Nirmal Singh petitioner:

(3.) THERE is clear device on the face of the record of the trial Court, and the revision, which I decided, which go to show that one or the other dilatory tactics are being used by Sibia or Nirmal Singh to help the latter. In the title deeds Smt. Balwant Kaur is the owner of the houses in dispute, which is in Chandigarh. Her ownership duly finds recorded in the records maintained by the Estate Office, Chandigarh, because she has not parted with its title. In 1958 she had let out the house in dispute to Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee and in the year 1977 the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee, constructed its own building and shifted there. However, Nirmal Singh continued to occupy the premises in dispute and the landlady sought ejectment of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee on the ground of sub-letting to Nirmal Singh, in which she was successful in obtaining an ex parte ejectment order. The application of Nirmal Singh for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order was dismissed by the Rent Controller and I had dismissed the revision on 21.5.1986 giving detailed reasons. On the very following day of my order Sibia got an application drafted for filing in the trial Court for fixing the date in the suit, in which no date had been fixed after 19.4.1984. That application came up before the trial Court on 24.5.1986 and ultimately, the file was got traced and effort was made to proceed with suit. That is how, the suit was received after about two years and the necessity to get it revived arose because of my order dated 21.5.1986. Otherwise it would not have been got revived. God knows for how much more time. Sibia has no title to the property and has claimed it on the basis of adverse possession. There is no material, which has been produced in Court to justify claim for adverse possession. Sibia and Nirmal singh are in collusion and under that, some receipt have been procured by Nirmal Singh from Sibia showing the payment of rent. All the aforesaid facts further straighten my order dated 21.5.1986 in not showing indulgence to Nirmal Singh for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. A one kanal house like the one in dispute would fetch rent not less than Rs. 2500/- whereas in 1958 it was let out at a very nominal rate and the last rate of rent was Rs. 450/- per month. The landlady has neither got rent nor possession and the tactics employed by Nirmal Singh are merely to delay his ejectment.