CR No.1613 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1613 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.3.2011 Narinder Kaur and others . . .Petitioners Versus Daljit Singh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Executing Court by which objections filed by Satpal Singh (since deceased) has been dismissed and warrant of possession was issued. The petitioners are the Legal Representatives of Satpal Singh, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) by the respondent Daljit Singh, which was allowed on the ground that the demised premises (shop) has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The statutory appeal filed by Satpal Singh (since deceased) was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 6.9.2006 and when the respondent/landlord filed its execution application in order to take possession, Satpal Singh (since deceased) filed objections on 9.12.2006 to which the reply was filed by the landlord and after the death of Satpal Singh, objections were pursued by his Legal Representatives, who are petitioners herein. The learned Court below dismissed the objections on the ground that they are frivolous and attempted to delay the delivery of possession to the landlord, who has been successful before the Courts below in seeking ejectment of the tenants. On a pointed question put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why these objections were not taken by Satpal Singh (since deceased) during the trial before the Rent Controller and even before the CR No.1613 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Appellate Authority, which have now been sought to be raised about the dimensions of the property in dispute, no reply at all was given obviously because no such objections are made out, otherwise the petitioners would have definitely taken these objections during the trial of the eviction petition. Thus, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Rent Controller/Civil Court dismissing the objections on the ground of it being frivolous and a device to prolong the execution. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 16, 2011 JUDGE Vivek