SMT. SAVITA Vs. SH. SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not in dispute that the present petitioner Smt. Savita is the daughter of the original tenant Sh. Nand Lal. The respondent herein, as landlord, filed the petition for ejectment under the provisions of the Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The present petitioner was not impleaded as party in the said petition. However, the fact of the matter is that the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller, Dharamshala on 28.9.2007 in Rent Petition No. 2/2002 has attained finality. At no stage of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, did the legal heirs take any objection with regard to non implementation of all of the legal heirs of the original tenant in the ejectment petition. The order of eviction has attained finality and in my considered view, as co -tenants, is binding upon all the legal heirs of the original tenant. Petitioner's application under the provisions of Order 21 Rules 58, 97, 101 read with Section 47 and 151 of C.P.C. in opposition to the execution petition stands rejected by the Court below in terms of impugned order dated 8.11.2012 passed in Objection Execution No. 3/2009 (In Execution No. 52/2007).

(2.) IN my considered view, there is no error apparent on the face of record. Also there is no illegality in the same. Petitioner woke up only after a period of seven years to oppose the execution petition. Also, petitioner did not notify the landlord about devolution of share of the estate in her favour, pursuant to the death of her father.