RAM RATTAN Vs. HARI NARANJAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application filed by Hari Naranjan and others, respondent-landlords, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred as the Act), Ram Rattan Appellant who was a tenant, was finally ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute. The landlords filed an execution application in which warrant of possession was issued. Ram Rattan tenant filed an appeal against the order of the Executing Court issuing the warrant of possession and the same was dismissed. Ram Rattan has now filed this Execution Second Appeal against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge, with enhanced appellate powers, Gurgaon.

(2.) The grounds taken up by the Appellants in the grounds of appeal have not been pressed and it has only been contended that the final ejectment order passed by the High Court could not be executed under Section 17 of the Act. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is without force because the High Court on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion can pass any order in a case for ejectment Section 17 of the Act reads as under :-

(3.) In view of the words "on appeal" mentioned in Section 17 of the Act, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the High Court in the instant case was in revision application and, therefore, the same is not executable.