SATISH KUMAR Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order, rejecting the objection filed by him as a third party for the execution of a decree dated 27.10.2006. The petitioner filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rules 100 and 101 CPC by alleging that he has come to know that decree holder, Smt. Shanti Devi had applied to dispossess the objector from the shop in question by taking police help. Claiming himself to be a tenant of Murti Sidheshwar Shivji Maharaj through its Mohtmim and Manager Om Parkash, the petitioner has pleaded that he is not bound by the decree as he was not party to the same. He further alleges that Moti Lal, father of the objector and Moti Ram, Judgment Debtor are two different person, having no relation between each other. Plea further is that a decree under execution had been got passed by the decree holder by playing fraud with the Court of Rent Controller and this decree was got passed by forging documents like rent note etc. According to the petitioner, the decree holder is neither the owner of the shop nor was she in possession of the same. Thus, there was no occasion for her to create a tenancy in favour of any one. The petitioner claimed himself to be a real tenant in the shop in question and in actual possession of the same. He pleads that no eviction order against him has been passed by any order and, thus, he can not be dispossessed from the shop. The petitioner has also pleaded that he is ready to provide a conclusive proof of the fact that decree holder is not the owner and Moti Lal, judgment debtor is not the tenant and in fact objector-petitioner is the tenant. He has accordingly sought permission to lead evidence in support of his plea.

(2.) NOTICE of the application was issued to the decree holder, who filed reply, stating that objector never came in possession of the demised premises. As per the decree holder, Moti Lal, Judgment Debtor and the objector are closely related to each other being father and son and that Murti Sidheshwar Shivji Maharaj has no concern with the suit property. Having regard to the respective submissions made before the Executive Court, the objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. While rejecting the application, the Court noticed the fact that judgment debtor has lost the case up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and the objection raised by the J.D. has already been dismissed. The petitioner had then filed the third party objection on the ground that he was not party to the suit. Noticing that this was done just to delay the execution proceedings, the Court, after referring to number of judgments, concluded that there was no need to frame issues and put the objection to trial and hence, the Court found the application to be devoid of merit.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the matter had been adjudicated upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decree under execution has attained finality. The Appellate Court has rightly noticed that the decree dated 27.10.2006 relied upon by the petitioner has not become final between the parties. The Appellate Court has made reference to the cases of Meenakshi Saini and another v. Giricharan Singh Bharma and others, 2002(2) PLJ 477, Som Parkash v. Santosh Rani, 1996(2) RCR(Rent) 270 and Bikram Singh v. Surjit Singh and others, 2004(4) RCR(Civil) 422 : 2005(1) Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 98 (P&H) to hold that there is no need to frame an issue and give an opportunity to lead evidence to the parties where the facts are clear. Reference is also made to Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and others v. Ajit Jain and another, 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 17 : AIR 1998 P&H 202 to say that where the objections prima-facie are frivolous, vexatious and intended to delay, then these are not liable to be put to trial as otherwise it would amount to abuse of process of the Court. It has also been noticed that owner of a property would not be deemed to be a landlord under the Rent Act in absence of any relationship of landlord and sitting tenant. The owner can not initiate any proceedings for eviction of the tenant. It has rightly been observed that mere fact that person is an owner of the premises does not make him a landlord of that premises. It is further noticeable that mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant can not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. In view of the ratio of law as laid down, which is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court was not fully unjustified in declining the prayer of the objector by not framing the issues on the basis of material and objections filed by the petitioner. The matter had already been decided and adjudicated upon up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Courts can not be used as a tool to undo the decisions of the Apex Court as has been sought to be achieved. The objections filed by the petitioner are merely to delay the inevitable and the execution of the decree, which has been justly declined. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.