SNEH LATA Vs. SURINDER SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.1955 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, in C.M.A. No. 46-S/14 of 1995. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge affirmed the order dated 14.6.1995 passed by the learned Sub-Judge (2), Shimla, by which an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as follows :-

(3.) RESPONDENT -landlady has filed a reply to the stay application, registered as CMP No. 320/95. It has been stated that the present petitioners never claimed that they were tenant qua the premises in question and that she is executing the warrant of possession after a protracted litigation and further the petitioners have no right whatsoever in the disputed premises. It has also been urged that the arrears of rent have not been paid till the filing of the reply and such arrears can be paid only by the tenant and not by the petitioners. According to the respondent-landlady, proforma respondent Ramesh Dutt Sharma gave an undertaking on the warrant of possession that he would deliver the possession of the premises on or before 15th May, 1989 and he also managed to file objection, which was finally dismissed, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. It has also been alleged that the present petition is barred under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 103 C.P.C. According to the respondent-landlady the petitioners do not have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in their favour. According to the respondent-landlady, she obtained a valid eviction order, therefore, removal of the petitioners and proforma respondents from the suit premises cannot be said without due process of law.