PRABHAT KUMAR Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 18.06.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. vide which, an application filed by the present petitioner under Section 47 and Order 21, Rules 97 to 101 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 26 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, was dismissed by the learned Executing Court, as also the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kantra, H.P. in Rent Appeal No. 1-G/2016, dated 15.01.2018, whereby appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order passed by learned Executing Court was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

(2.) Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner herein was respondent alongwith his brother Sanjay Sharma in Rent Petition No. 3- II/2006, titled as Smt. Pushpa Sharma versus Parbhat Kumar and another. The rent petition was allowed by the Rent Controller (2), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. vide order dated 19.06.2014. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner did not assail the order so passed by the learned Rent Controller, though the same was assailed by his brother Sanjay Sharma up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the Special Leave to petition, which was filed by Sanjay Sharma before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as is evident from the record, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.02.2016, passed in SLP (C) No. 2467 of 2016, dismissed the Special Leave Petition, though by granting Sanjay Sharma three months' time to vacate the premises in question. It appears from the record that as the premises were not vacated by the tenants, execution petition was preferred by the landlord. After the warrant of possession was issued by the learned Executing Court, an application stood filed by the present petitioner under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code against the execution of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the order so passed by the learned Rent Controller was not executable against the petitioner as he was not the tenant of the demised premises but was a sub tenant inducted as such by Sanjay Sharma and as he was not impleaded as party in the execution petition, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in the year 2014 was not executable against him.

(3.) This application stood dismissed by the learned Executing Court inter alia on the ground that (a) that the application filed by the applicant/present petitioner was not maintainable as the same stood filed under those provisions of law which were available to the person who was not a judgment debtor and was a stranger to the eviction proceedings; (b) the stand which was taken in the execution petition was totally in contradiction to the stand which was taken by the respondent in the eviction petition.