PAWAN KUMAR Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 30.3.1980 whereby objections filed by judgment-debtor (tenant) were accepted and the execution application of the decree-holder (landlord) was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 19.12.1958 the premise were let out to Mehar Chand tenant, by the landlord Pawan Kumar. Subsequently thereto, the landlord-owner Pawan Kumar mortgaged the demised premises with possession with one Jagdev Ram. Since the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.4.1972 an ejectment application was filed both by Pawan Kumar and the mortgagee Jagdev Ram on 3.3.1977, on the ground that tenant Mehar Chand was in arrears of rent from 1.4.1972. It was further stated in the ejectment application that rent with effect from 1.4.1972 to 14.2.1977 was payable to Pawan Kumar and thereafter to Jagdev Ram. The arrears of rent claimed therein were assessed to by Rs. 3933.34. On the firm date of hearing i.e. 30.3.1977, the tenant appeared and made a statement before the Rent Controller that he is tendered the same, but he was not prepared to pay interests and costs as assessed by the Court. He further stated that he was prepared to vacate the shop. He be given time upto 19.3.1979 after which date, he will have no objection to vacate. The Rent Controller had assessed Rs. 25/- as costs on that date. On this the landlord made a statement that he had heard the statement of the tenant and received the amount of Rs. 3933.34 under protest and allowed the tenant to continue in occupation upto 19.3.1979. However, he accepted the amount under protest, since the tenant had not paid the interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller. In view of this statement, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order : "In view of above statements of the parties I order ejectment of respondent from the premises, in dispute, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Further, in view of statements of the parties, I order that this ejectment order will be executable after 19.3.1979".

(3.) THE executing Court while referring to certain judgments, came to the conclusion that "I am of the opinion that the learned Rent Controller did not apply his mind and no statutory ground for ejectment was available to the landlord on the material placed before the Rent Controller. The ejectment order, therefore, clearly is null and void and non-executable". Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this court. It is most unfortunate that this petition was filed in 1980 and it remained pending since then. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whole approach of the executing Court was wrong and illegal. The ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller on account of non-payment of arrears of rent with costs and interest. The tenant was allowed two years' time to vacate the premises according to his own statement and, therefore, it did not lie in his mouth to object the execution of the decree for ejectment. According to the learned counsel, the court should not allow the parties to take dishonest plea particularly when the parties had taken benefits of the order passed by the Rent Controller on 30.3.1977. In case he had contested the petition, the matter could have been decided there and then but since he himself offered to vacate the premises after two years, the said time was allowed to the tenant by the landlord. In support of his contention he referred to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in R.B.L. Banarsi Dass and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Shree Amar Trading Company, 1989(1) P.L.R. 29, where it was held that in such circumstances, the tenant should not have been given any protection by the Court.