GOVIND SAINI Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition purporting to be one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but fundamentally one under Article227 of the Constitution of India a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur affirming the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') as the executing court) dismissing the petitioner - Objector's (hereinafter 'the objector') application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC against the execution of a certificate of possession issued by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in Eviction petition No.619/2010 on 28.2.2011 in a case titled Prabhudayal vs. Veerdev Sharma.

(2.) THE background facts of the case are that the respondent - plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff) filed an eviction petition No.619/2010 against one Veerdev Sharma, now deceased and represented by his legal representatives impleaded in this petition as respondents -defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants'). Ground agitated in support thereof were bonafide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiff for the tenanted shop, as also subletting as the defendant was stated to have sub -let the tenanted shop to one Govind Saini. In spite of service of the petition on Veerdev Sharma, then alive, he did not appear before the Tribunal and exparte proceedings were drawn against him. Subsequently the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a compromise, wherein he admitted to the factum of plaintiffs bonafide and reasonable necessity, but stated that the tenanted shop in question had not been sub -let to Govind Saini who was only managing the shop as an employee. Based on the compromise application and admission of the defendant Veerdev Sharma of the plaintiffs bonafide and reasonable necessity, a certificate of possession was issued by the Tribunal on 28.2.2011 whereunder vacant possession of the tenanted shop was to be handed over to the plaintiff by 30.3.2011.

(3.) THE vacant possession of the shop in question however was not handed over to the plaintiff by 30.3.2011. The plaintiff then moved an application for execution of the certificate of possession aforesaid. On 29.7.2011, the Nazir accompanied by the certificate holder's son went to the tenanted shop in issue and finding the objector Govind Saini in possession, informed him that it was to be vacated in terms of certificate of possession dated 28.2.2011. Thereupon an altercation ensued between the son of the holder of certificate of possession Prabhudayal and Govind Saini. The Nazir then made his report to the executing Court and sought directions that the possession of shop in issue be recovered with the aid of the police. This was so directed by the executing Court on 2.8.2011.