RAM PARTAP Vs. DAYAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision and the suit filed by Ram Partap are nothing but an abuse of process of Court as would be apparent from the facts. Dayal Chand and others purchased evacuee property Nos. 109 to 122 in an auction -sale conducted by the Rehabilitation Department. On 21 -1 -1958 symbolical possession was delivered to them and they were given the sale certificate on 9 -1 -1963.

(2.) ON 31 -12 -1962 House No. 108 was put to auction -sale by the Rehabilitation Department, which was purchased by Hari Chand. When Dayal Chand and others came to know of the auction -sale they moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the auction -sale in favour of Hari Chand on the plea that part of their property had been numbered as 108 and wrongly sold to Hari Chand. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 4th December, 1963 and 5th January, 1965 ordered the cancellation of auction -sale in favour of Hari Chand and declared that the property was part of the property which was sold in 1957 -58 in favour of Dayal Chand and others.

(3.) SINCE Hari Chand was in possession of the party of the property purchased by Dayal Chand and others, as a tenant, they sought his eviction by filing an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on 14 -2 -1969. While that application was pending, on 8 -7 -1969 Hari Chand sold 2/3rd share of the house in his possession in favour of Ram Partap. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, and on remand, the Rent Controller ordered ejectment of Hari Chand by order dated 31 -3 -1973 on the ground of non -payment of rent and personal necessity. Hari Chand's appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 16th May, 1977 but on landlord's revision this Court allowed the revision on 23 -4 -1980 and restored the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. At no stage Ram Partap came forward to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings, although in law he would have been entitled to join the proceedings since he had purchased part of the rights of Hari Chand. But he did not choose to do so. When execution was taken out, Ram Partap filed objections but he remained unsuccessful. It is thereafter that he filed the present suit for declaration to challenge the order of ejecwent and the execution proceedings taken thereon and alongwith suit, filed an application for ad -interim injunction to restrain the landlords from executing the ejectment order. Both the Courts below have declined the ad -interim injunction and this is revision of Ram Partap against the aforesaid orders.