IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3478 of 2009. Date of Decision: 1st July, 2009. Madan Lal Petitioner through Mr. Suneet Sharma, Advocate Versus Gurjit Singh Grewal & Ors. Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 20.8.2008 and 11.4.2009 passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana respectively whereby the petitioner's objections in an Execution Petition have been dismissed. Suffice it to note here that respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an eviction petition against Kharaiti Lal – respondent No. 3 under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 16.12.2004 against which Kharaiti Lal went in appeal but the same was also dismissed. The landlords thereafter filed the Execution Petition in which the petitioner has filed his objections, inter-alia, claiming that he is a tenant in the shop in dispute which was let out to him by one Iqbal Singh, resident of Gujjarwal, District Ludhiana. The petitioner claimed that in fact he only had authorized Kharaiti Lal to run a tea stall and sweet shop in the tenanted premises on his behalf and he used to regularly visit the shop once or twice in a month. The petitioner alleges that the respondent-landlords have obtained the eviction order allegedly in connivance with Kharaiti Lal. Both the Courts, on consideration of the material on record, have concurrently held that the objections have been filed by the petitioner in collusion with Kharaiti Lal in order to delay the execution of the eviction order which has already attained finality. No convincing evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that he was ever inducted as a tenant by the landlords or that Kharaiti Lal had no concern whatsoever with the disputed premises. Contrary to it, the petitioner himself has admitted that Kharaiti Lal was in physical possession thereof and was running a tea stall and sweet shop. The petitioner's plea that there was a collusion between the landlords and Kharaiti Lal, is falsified by the fact that the eviction petition was hotly contested by Kharaiti Lal who went in appeal also. No case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. July 01, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE