C.R. No.8421 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8421 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2010 Raj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana by which objection filed by the petitioner in the execution application filed by the respondent has been dismissed. In brief, the facts of this case are that respondent Mohan Lal (landlord) filed an ejectment petition against Raksha Devi and Dharam Pal who were joint tenants over the shop in dispute, on the ground of non-payment of rent and ceased to occupy the rented premises since March 2000 without any cause. The learned Rent Controller framed issues, out of which issue No.1 was with regard to the non-payment of rent and issue No.2 was in respect of ceased to occupy the demised premises. Vide its order dated 08.09.2006, the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition on the ground that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute. In the meantime, Raksha Devi, one of the tenant, had died and her legal representatives were brought on record, whereas the other tenant, namely Dharam Pal, was unheard of. The legal representatives of Raksha Devi filed the first appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana which was dismissed on 11.12.2009. Although Dharam Pal was unheard of, the Civil Revision No.1492 of 2009 was filed challenging the order of ejectment passed by the Courts below which was dismissed by this C.R. No.8421 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** Court on 22.04.2009. At the time of dismissal of the said revision petition, counsel for the tenants had sought time to vacate the premises, on which this Court had passed the following order: - “Learned counsel seeks for time to vacate the premises but having regard to the evidence that the persons claiming to be legal representatives of the tenant have ceased to occupy, I see no reason to accommodate the request.” Thereafter, the tenants had also filed Review Application No.41- CII of 2009 in CR No.1492 of 2009 which was dismissed by this Court on 04.05.2009. That order was not further challenged and had become final. The landlord was executing the order of ejectment in which the present petitioner Raj Kumar son of Dharam Pal filed objection on the ground that as Dharam Pal was stated to be missing since the year 1999, it was essential on the part of the landlord to implead his legal representatives including the objector who had inherited the tenancy rights as Dharam Pal was presumed to have died. This objection has been rejected by the learned Court below by the impugned order on the ground that though Dharam Pal was missing, but his death could not have been presumed as it was only after 2 years that the petition was filed and actually Dharam Pal had been re-surfaced on 27.06.2009, therefore, it was held that he was very much alive and there was no occasion for bringing his legal representatives on record as the death would have been presumed only after the completion of 7 years which was to be proved by the persons who would have generally heard about him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same argument that the ejectment order has been passed by the learned Rent Controller illegally without impleading the legal representatives of Dharam Pal who was massing since the year 1999, whereas the ejectment petition was filed in the year 2001. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in which the landlord had to fight a long battle to seek ejectment of the tenants who are not doing any business C.R. No.8421 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ***** in the shop in dispute which is lying closed ever since Dharam Pal had been missing and none of the legal representatives of Raksha Devi, who are all married girls, were in occupation of the shop in dispute. Thus, to my mind, the objection raised by the petitioner is totally misconceived and frivolous which has rightly been dismissed by the learned Court below. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed with costs throughout. December 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE