PURAN CHAND HALWAI Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the tenant. He has challenged the order passed by the executing court, dismissing his objections filed under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, in the execution proceedings.

(2.) A petition, seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop, was filed by the landlord under Section 13, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 in the Court of Rent Controller, Bhiwani. The rent petition was dismissed on August 18, 1987. Appeal filed by the landlord was, however, allowed by the appellate authority. The revision petition filed by the tenant, Puran Chand, in the High Court came to be dismissed on November 16, 1993. The landlords, who were the minor sons of Ramesh Chander, filed execution petition through their mother Smt. Savitri Devi, seeking eviction of the tenant from the shop. The tenant, Puran Chand, filed an objection petition before the executing court raising a plea that the landlord had no right to seek eviction in pursuance of the eviction order because the landlord had agreed on March 19, 1993 to sell the shop in question for a sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. It was stated by him that an agreement, in writing, had been executed by the landlord in his favour, though the agreement was not signed by Puran Chand but by his son, Prem Parkash, who lived jointly with him. It was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant and, therefore, the proposed vendee cannot be ejected from the shop in view of the agreement. It was also pleaded by the tenant-judgment debtor that the eviction order was not executable as Ramesh Chander, the father and guardian of the minors had agreed to sell the shop and, therefore, the tenant's possession, in the status of a proposed vendee, stood protected under the said agreement. Minors have not challenged the agreement nor have they declared it as a voidable agreement.

(3.) The landlord took the plea that the said agreement had been entered into by the father of the minors, who had no right to enter into such an agreement against the interest of the minors. It was alleged that the father of the minors was a person of bad habits and he was acting against the interest of the minors. Therefore, the agreement was not binding on the minors inasmuch as it was against their interest.