LAWS(HPH)-2000-12-13

BHARAT SINGH Vs. HARMEET SINGH

Decided On December 15, 2000
BHARAT SINGH Appellant
V/S
Harmeet Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition preferred by the petitioner - JD (hereafter referred to as the JD) is directed against the order dated 26.9.2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller (5), Shimla whereby the application of the Decree Holder for breaking open the lock of the rented premises from where the eviction of the JD is sought by respondent No. 1 on the basis of an eviction order passed in favour of respondent No.2, has been allowed.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that on an application under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as the Act) moved by respondent No. 2, the then landlady, against the JD for eviction from quarter Nos. 11 and 12, Hellen Lodge Estate, Cart Road, Shimla, an ex - parte eviction order was passed by the learned Rent Controller (3), Shimla on 20.6.1991. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed an application for execution of the said order of eviction in the Court of Rent Controller which was registered as Execution Petition No. 15/10 of 1999/94. Vide order dated 7.9.1999, the Rent Controller directed issue of warrant of possession in respect of the premises in question. The warrant issued pursuant to the said order was received back unexecuted with the report dated 22.4.2000 of the concerned Bailiff that the premises in question were found locked and, therefore, the possession could not be delivered. The DH then moved an application praying for execution of the warrant by breaking open the lock. However, the application was not considered at that time and a warrant of possession was ordered to be issued on 28.7.2000. This order was not complied with presumably because of the pendency of the application -for breaking open the lock, therefore, the Rent Controller considered (sic) application for the DH by the impugned order and directed that the possession of the premises be handed over to the DH by breaking open the lock. Feeling aggrieved, the JD has preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.