RIMPY BAWA Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh as well as decision dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh upholding the said order.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that, a petition under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by respondent No.l alongwith his brother Mohan Singh seeking ejectment of the tenant-Gopal Krishan Manik (brother of the present petitioner) from the premises, in question, on the ground that the landlords are Non Resident Indians and they require the building for their own personal use and occupation.

(3.) Gopal Krishan Manik filed an application for leave to defend, which was however declined on 22.01.2016 and his ejectment was ordered. A revision petition was filed by Gopal Krishan Manik before this Court, which was dismissed and his ejectment was upheld right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Execution of the ejectment order was sought by respondent No.l and his brother. Objections were filed by the present petitioner in the said execution petition to the effect that she is daughter of Joginder Mohan Manik i.e., the original tenant to whom the tenanted premises was let out way back in the year 1974. Joginder Mohan Manik is claimed to have died on 01.04.2001 leaving behind his wife Rama Manik, son Gopal Krishan Manik and four daughters, all married (including the present petitioner). Wife of Joginder Mohan Manik, Rama Manik died on 12.02.2008 leaving behind his son and four daughters. The present petitioner is claimed to be a co-tenant of the demised premises, the tenancy in question being inheritable. It is alleged that Gopal Krishan Manik was a habitual drunkard and incapable of rational thinking. He had to be taken for treatment to various hospitals and remained on medication for many years. The rent petition was claimed to have been filed by the landlords without impleading the objector and other co-tenants being proper and necessary parties in order to play a fraud upon them. It is also stated that Gopal Krishan Manik had, in fact, connived with the landlords and had even received some consideration from them, therefore, he did not pursue the matter properly. Respondent-landlords opposed the said objections while submitting that the said objection petition is merely a tactic being employed by the petitioner to delay the execution proceedings as they stood finalized upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.