ESA No. 11 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ESA No. 11 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.9.2011 ... Preet Mohinder Singh ................Appellant vs. Ranjit Singh and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in the present execution second appeal is to the judgment dated 10.3.2011 passed by Mrs. Sunita Kumari Sharma, Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which the appeal preferred by the objector, against the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, was dismissed. Briefly stated, the landlord filed Rent petition No. 10 dated ESA No. 11 of 2011 -2- 15.2.2001 under Section 13-B of the Rent Act, for vacation of the premises on the ground of personal necessity. The said petition was contested by Ajit Singh – judgment debtor. The leave to appeal was granted and ultimately, eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act was accepted vide order dated 6.8.2003. Ajit Singh preferred revision against the said judgment dated 6.8.2003 passed by the Rent Controller and that revision petition was dismissed on 10.1.2006. The landlord-decree holder resorted to the execution proceedings. The objector, now appellant, filed objection dated 28.8.2006 taking the stand that he is in possession of shop measuring 13’ X 41’, shown in the red colour in the site plan. The said shop was taken on rent by the objector from Smt. Amarjit Kaur daughter of Teja Singh i.e. real sister of the decree holder at the rate of Rs.100/- per month on 1.3.1991 for running the shop of photographer. He has been paying rent to Smt. Amarjit Kaur against proper receipts and payment of electricity bills etc. Prior to that one Harbans Lal was the occupant of the said shop and electricity meter was in his name. In a challan relating to FIR No. 66 under Sections 279/304 A IPC address of the objector is that of the shop in question. The objector has strained relations with his father i.e. the judgment debtor from the very beginning and the objector was turned out by the judgment debtor from the house in the year 1985 and since then he is residing independently. His father disinherited the objector on 27.12.1995. There was litigation between the judgment debtor and the appellant. Proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were also resorted to. ESA No. 11 of 2011 -3- Civil suit No. 62 of 11.2.2006 filed by the appellant alongwith his brother Devinder Singh against the judgment debtor was also dismissed in the year 2009 and appeal was also dismissed in the year 2010. The said objections were contested by the decree holder and it is submitted that these are collusive. It was denied that objector remained in possession of the suit property as tenant under Amarjit Kaur as alleged. It is pleaded by the decree holder that objector has produced fabricated receipts which are outcome of the traced forgery. Whole of the property was given on rent to M/s Kartar Singh Ajit Singh through its proprietor Ajit Singh and he had been in possession of the demised premises. The decree holder being NRI filed ejectment petition which was accepted and that order has become final. The story of disinheritance is concocted. The litigation between the objector and his father was also denied. It is averred that the objection petition has been filed to deprive the decree holder to get the ejectment order executed, which has become final. Had the objector in independent tenancy, the same must have been pleaded by the judgment debtor. The objections are frivolous and only meant to delay the proceedings. Learned Executing Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the objections vide order dated 1.4.2010. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order of dismissal of objections, the objector filed the Ist Appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 10.3.2011. Still feeling dissatisfied, the objector has challenged the ESA No. 11 of 2011 -4- judgment dated 10.3.2011 passed by Mrs. Sunita Kumari Sharma, Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, and the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, by filing the present execution second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no doubt the objector is the son of judgment debtor, but the relation between the objector-appellant and his father Ajit Singh are strained. He has been disinherited vide affidavit dated 27.12.1995 executed by Ajit Singh. Proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were resorted to. Civil Suit No. 62 of 11.2.2006 was filed by the objector with his brother against Ajit Singh. That was dismissed on 24.4.2009. The objector is tenant in the premises under Amarjit Kaur sister of the decree holder. Prior to that Harbans Singh was the tenant and receipt in his favour has also been placed on the file. The objector is the third party and his rights are to be independently assessed. In view of Order 21 Rules 97 and 103 CPC, the rights can be determined only by framing issue and allowing the parties to lead their evidence. The separate suit is not maintainable. To support this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the authority reported as Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and others 2004(1) C.CC. 212 (S.C.). It is further submitted that this Court in ESA No. 27 of 2009 titled as Gurdial Singh vs. Ranjit Singh and others accepted the ESA and directed the Executing Court to decide the objection after framing issue. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. Authority in Ashan Devi’s case ESA No. 11 of 2011 -5- (Supra), lays down that objections preferred by the third party under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and Rule 103 CPC are maintainable. The question arises if the Court comes to the conclusion that objections are frivolous and meant to delay the proceedings, in that case the same can be summarily dismissed. Reliance on authority reported as Bikram Singh vs. Surjit Singh and others 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 374 (P&H) has been made by the trial Court. The Ist Appellate Court has also given a categorical finding that objections are meant to delay the proceedings of the case and as such the appeal preferred by the objector/appellant was dismissed. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act with a view to provide speedy remedy to the NRIs to get the possession of the building on the basis of personal necessity. The landlord filed petition in the year 2001 which remained pending till 2003. The judgment debtor who happens to be the father of the objector preferred revision petition which remained pending before the High Court and was ultimately decided in the year 2006. It cannot be believed that objector has no knowledge about the pendency of those proceedings for about six years. The High Court dismissed the revision petition on 10.1.2006 and the civil suit was filed on 10.2.2006 and according to the objector, he remained unsuccessful in that civil suit. That civil suit was in respect of the property left by the grandfather of the objector. So, far as the authority in Gurdial Singh’s case is concerned, in that case triable issue has arisen as the objector has purchased the property from the real owner on payment of consideration. So far as reliance of ESA No. 11 of 2011 -6- the appellant on the affidavit dated 27.12.1995, certified copy of which has been placed on the file, is concerned, it is revealed that according to the said affidavit, Ajit Singh has stated that objector is demanding that judgment debtor (Ajit Singh) should hand over the possession of the shop to the objector. The said document rather goes against the objector, wherein he has stated that objector is forcibly demanding the shop. The authenticity of receipts has been discussed by both the Courts below and both the Courts below have reached to the conclusion that these documents have been manufactured just to delay the proceedings of the case. So, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that objector has filed the present frivolous objections merely to delay the proceedings of the case, does not call for any interference. So far as the submission made by counsel for the appellant that in the challan case under Section 304-A IPC, he has given his address as of the shop in question, is concerned, from the perusal of the same it is revealed that the said case was decided in the year 1996. Mere that assertion itself does not prove that the address was that of the shop in question. The appellant cannot derive any fruit from the said assertion. It is highly unbelievable that the appellant would not have acquired the knowledge of pendency of eviction petition for about five years before the Rent Controller as well as, before the High Court. There is no document on the file that Amarjit Kaur ever remained in possession of this shop, for which objection has been filed. She could hand over the possession only if she was actually in possession of the said shop. ESA No. 11 of 2011 -7- So, in view of the cumulative facts, the execution second appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance. ( K.C. Puri ) 20.9.2011 Judge chugh