MANMOHAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. SH. JAINENDRA GURUKUL, PANCHKULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment Debtor, who had suffered a Civil Court decree for execution in relation to property situate in Panchkula challenged the continuation of execution before the Civil Court on the ground that after the passing of the decree namely on 27.03.2000, there had been a Government notification made on 27.01.2001 bringing the premises, where the property was situate, within the Municipal Committee and applying the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. The contention was that in view of the notification, Civil Court decree in relation to a property would abate and the tenant could not be evicted otherwise than by resort to the provisions of the Rent Act.

(2.) THE Executing Court proceeded with execution placing reliance on Rant Kumar v. Shyam Sunder, 2001 HRR 281 and rejected the contentions of the Judgment Debtor who placed reliance on Ram Narain & Ors. v. Ram Lal & Ors.,, 2004(1) RLR 202 and Kuldip Rai v. Roshan Lal, PLR CXXVI (2000) 282. Ram Kumar's decision referred to above refers to a case where property which had been originally within an area to which the provisions of the Rent Act applied was later denotified, as a result of which it enabled the decree -holder to pursue the remedy before the Civil Court itself. On the other hand, in this case, the property was admittedly ordered to be notified only on 27.01.2001 when the execution process of the Civil Court decree had not come to full realization. Evidently the decree -holder was trying execution of Civil Court decree after notification had been made to the area to come within the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. The execution petition was clearly barred and the rejection of the objection made by the judgment debtor was equally erroneous.