SATISH KUMAR Vs. DEV BALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This is revision against order dated 16.12017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dismissing the objections filed by petitioner, who is tenant in the demised premises and has been ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller. He availed remedy of appeal and revision against order of ejectment but ultimately failed. Before the Executing Court he raised one objection after the other including question of title of the decree holder, his filing of petition for ejectment without consent of other co-sharers. He then filed one more application dated 109.2016 to the effect that one of the co-sharers Sh. Rajnish Thamman had agreed to rent out the tenanted premises and had also shown willingness to sell out his share in the tenanted premises. This has frustrated the plea of bona fide need raised by the decree-holder. One more application dated 08.12016 was filed on the ground that one half share in the tenanted premises had been sold to JDs no. 3 and 4 (sons of JD no. 1) by one of the co-owners vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.2016, as such eviction decree had become in-fructuous. The petitioner filed one more application dated 28.11.2017 for treating the executing petition as null and void as the petitioner had paid the rent to JDs no. 3 and 4 (sons of JD no. 1) and obtained receipts from them.

(3.) Learned Executing Court after relying on observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570 and observations of this Court in cases of Mohan Lal v. Amrik Singh, 2007 (2) RCR (Rent) 686 and Narender Kumar v. Amar Lal, 2016 (3) PLR 329 has observed that the tenancy right of a tenant could not merge with the ownership and subsequent purchasers are under legal obligation to first surrender possession of the tenanted property and then seek separate remedy of partition.