PAWAN KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. HARGOVIND SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 26.09.2015 in Misc. Case No. 99 of 2015 whereby, petition under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 CPC has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner claims himself a tenant in respect of a room about 177 sq. ft. in area in Kedia House situated at Ranchi. It is stated that the said room was let out to the father of the petitioner by Kashi Prasad Kedia, the erstwhile owner of the Kedia House who had taken loan of Rs. 20,000/ from the father of the petitioner on 01.07.1961, acknowledged by money receipt dated 01.07.1961. The loan was availed in cash on payment of annual interest at the rate of 12% and it was agreed between the parties that the interest amount would be adjusted against the rent in respect of the tenanted premises. In the said premises the mother of the petitioner, and his uncle namely, Om Prakash Jhunjhunwala carried a partnership business in the name and style of "Pawan Hardware Stores" since 1962 and the said partnership continued till 1982. Subsequently, the premises was used by the petitioner for his own business in the name and style of "M/s Natraj Industries". With the consent of landlord a part of the said premises was also used by his uncle Om Praksh Jhunjhunwala for running Pawan Hardwares Store, independently. The son of the erstwhile owner instituted a proceeding before the House Rent Controller for fixing fair rent with respect to different premises and it was registered as BBC Case No. 51 R 15 of 1992 in which final order was passed on 14.06.2006. The said order was challenged by different tenants in BBC Appeal No. 39 R 15 of 2006 however, the appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the House Rent Controller attained finality. One Hargovind Singhrespondent no. 1 claiming purchase of Kedia House instituted eviction suit being ETS No. 05/2008. In the said suit M/s Dwarka Das Mangal Chand was arrayed as defendant however, the petitioner was not made a party therein. The suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2013 and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises within one month. The respondent no. 1 thereafter, instituted Execution Case No. 01 of 2013, in which the petitioner filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 CPC which was registered as Misc. Case No. 99 of 2015. The petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a tenant and he is in possession of a shop and therefore, he can resist the execution of decree in Eviction Title Suit No. 05 of 2008. Moreover, the petitioner can be evicted from the tenanted premises, only in accordance with law and he has not to wait for his dispossession to participate in the execution proceeding. The learned counsel has relied on decision in "Shreenath & Anr. Vs. Rajesh & Ors., 1998 4 SCC 543" .