JAI DEV AGARWAL Vs. SURENDER KUMAR CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Execution Second Appeal has been filed by the decree- holder against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while dismissing his execution petition and allowing the objections filed by the third party objector. The appellant filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary, which was allowed and he was ordered to be evicted on the ground of subletting. When the appellant filed the execution petition, Sh. Lakhmi Chand filed the objection petition. He was not impleaded in the original petition. While filing the objections, Sh. Lakhmi Chand claimed that he is the owner of the property and has constructed various shops, which have been let out to various persons and the appellant is neither owner nor landlord of the premises. The Executing Court, on the basis of pleadings, culled out the following issues for adjudication:-

(2.) The parties were directed to lead evidence. The courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove that Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary was ever inducted as a tenant or sub-tenant. Thus, the courts have held that the eviction order cannot be implemented against the third party objector Sh. Lakhmi Chand. Although, it has been held that Sh. Lakhmi Chand has failed to prove his ownership.

(3.) In this Execution Second Appeal, the respondents have not entered appearance. In fact, Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary (respondent no.1) is the judgment debtor. The contesting respondent (respondent no.2) was proceeded against ex-parte on 13/11/2019.