C.R. No.8034 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8034 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 09.12.2010 Sanjeev Bansal .....Petitioner Versus Narender Parbhakar and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.31509-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Objector-Sanjiv Bansal has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 06.03.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by the executing Court i.e learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani and the appellate judgment dated 13.10.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani thereby dismissing objections preferred by the petitioner in execution petition filed by respondent No.1-decree-holder against judgment debtors Bishan Kumar Verma (since deceased and represented by respondent Nos.2 to 5) and Krishan Kumar Verma-respondent No.6. Suit filed by respondent No.1 against judgment debtors for possession of the suit property situated in Halu Bazar, Old Anaj Mandi, Bhiwani by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.08.1997 was decreed by the trial Court. First and second appeals stand dismissed. Decree-holder filed execution petition in which C.R. No.8034 of 2010 (O & M) -2- petitioner herein filed objection petition Annexure P-1. Petitioner alleged in the objection petition that he is tenant in the disputed property from the date of the alleged agreement to sell at monthly rent of Rs.50/- which was increased from time to time. The petitioner alleged that his tenancy is protected by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P- 2 dismissed the objection petition. Appeal preferred against order Annexure P-2 by the petitioner-objector has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned judgment Annexure P-3. Feeling aggrieved, objector has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is tenant in the suit property since the year 1999 without having knowledge of the alleged agreement to sell and, therefore, tenancy of the petitioner is protected. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. The objection petition is patently frivolous and has been filed to delay the execution proceedings, apparently at the instance of and in collusion with the judgment debtors. The suit property is double storyed shop-cum-house as submitted by counsel for the petitioner. It is situated in Hallu Bazar, Old Anaj Mandi, Bhiwani which is prime location. It is unbelievable that in the year 1999, double storyed shop-cum-residential property situated in prime location in Bhiwani would have fetched rent of Rs.50/- per month only. The very version of the petitioner-objector is patently untenable. C.R. No.8034 of 2010 (O & M) -3- In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner does not know as to since when he is allegedly tenant in the disputed property. In the objection petition, it was alleged that he is tenant in the suit property from the date of alleged agreement to sell i.e 12.08.1997. This plea is also inherently untenable because the jdugment debtors would not have let out the suit property to the petitioner on the same day on which they agreed to sell the same to the decree-holder. Moreover, before the lower appellate Court, it was alleged that petitioner is tenant in the suit property since the year 1996 at the rate of Rs.50/- per month rent and he paid Rs.3000/- in lump sum as rent vide receipt dated 25.01.1996. The petitioner thus contradicted the objection petition Annexure P-1 by alleging the tenancy to be since January 1996. It is also unbelievable that rent for five years was paid in lump sum in advance. In addition to it, now it has been stated that the petitioner is tenant in the suit property since the year 1999. It is thus manifest that the petitioner has been changing his stand and has raised false plea of tenancy in the suit property. The objection has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Courts below so as warrant interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Objection petition Annexure P-1 filed by the petitioner is patently frivolous and so is the instant revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioner has to be subjected to exemplary costs for filing frivolous objection petition and carrying the matter to this Court by revision after having failed in executing Court as well as in appellate C.R. No.8034 of 2010 (O & M) -4- Court. Such frivolous litigation has to be curbed to avoid choking of the Courts with frivolous and unnecessary litigation. In the instant case, the objection petition was not only frivolous, but mala fide with intend to delay and defeat the execution petition after the decree-holder had succeeded upto second appeal in this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner is subjected to Rs.7500/- as costs to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. 09.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE