KULDIP RAJ Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 21.8.1997, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurdaspur vide which the execution application was dismissed by deciding issue No. l framed by the executing Court in favour of the judgment debtor.

(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Kuldip Raj and others were landlords of the disputed property while Roshan Lal was the tenant of the same. Shri Kuldip Raj is dead. He filed Civil Suit No. 421 of 6.11.1996 against Shri Roshan Lai (Tenant) (Dead) for his ejectment as well as for the recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 20/-. The suit was compromised by the parties and on the basis of compromise, it was decreed on 5.5.1970 by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Gurdaspur. It was agreed in the compromise that Roshan Lal would continue as a tenant in the disputed property for a period of another 25 years from the date of decree and he would also pay rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month to the landlord. It was also agreed that if the tenant committed default in paying the rent for a continuous period of six months, the ejectment decree shall be executable earlier to the said 25 years from the date of decree and he would also pay rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month to the landlord. It was also agreed that if the tenant committed default in paying the rent for a continuous period of six months, the ejectment decree shall be executable earlier to the said 25 years period. The decree holder alleged that the J.D. has not paid him the rent w.e.f. January, 1989 and, therefore, he has made himself liable for ejectment earlier to 25 years. During the pendency of the execution application, the period of 25 years has also expired and he was then got the amendment of the application and contended that he has now got a right to get the possession back from the tenant in execution of the decree. The tenant filed the objections to the effect that the decree was not executable and it was without jurisdiction. It was contended that the property in dispute is situated within the municipal limits of Gurdaspur and as such, it is governed by the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The J.Ds have also pointed out that they cannot be ejected from the disputed property except under the provisions of the aforesaid Rent Act.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the execution Court:-