NEELAM Vs. KAMLA SHARMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh and judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which objections filed by the appellant were dismissed and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court.

(2.) Appellant Neelam filed objections claiming herself to be wife of original allottee of demised premises namely Dharam Singh. She further alleged that decree holder Ashwani Kumar was power of attorney of her husband. Husband of the appellant died on 20.03.2005 and thereafter, the said attorney was automatically terminated, but the decree holder kept on pursuing the ejectment petition, appeal and revision and thereafter, filed execution of the order of eviction against the tenant without any authority of the original allottee. Decree holder had filed an eviction petition against Vijay Bhatti and the same was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 07.11.2006 on account of non-payment of rent. The order of eviction was maintained in appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 04.08.2007 and even by the High Court when the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2010.

(3.) The objections filed by the appellant were contested by the decree holder and decree holder even disputed the factum of the appellant being wife of late Dharam Singh. The decree holder claimed that he filed the eviction petition in his individual capacity and thereafter, persuaded the litigation in his individual capacity upto the High Court. Tenant Vijay Bhatti was ordered to be evicted on 07.11.2006. The execution was filed by the decree holder in his individual capacity and not as power of attorney of Dharam Singh. The decree holder further claimed that he being landlord of the premises is not necessarily to be owner of the same. The status of the decree holder as landlord has already been accepted upto the High Court, therefore, he denied the assertions made by the objector/appellant. The case of the objector/appellant is that her deceased husband was owner of the demised property and after his death, she has inherited the same. Stallionjit Singh is in possession of the property under her authority.