CR No. 3124 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3124 of 2010 Decided on :23-07-2010 Veena Rani ....Petitioner VERSUS Harbans Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for the respondent no.1. MAHESH GROVER, J The instant petition is directed against the order rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97. The facts of the case reveals that a preliminary decree in favour of respondent-landlord was passed on 5.6.1980 in which it was observed that the petitioner's father and others were tenants therein and appeal followed and on 21.8.84 the same was dismissed and it was observed that since some persons including petitioner were inducted as tenants by the mortgagees, the tenancy comes to an end on the extinction of mortgage. Final decree came on 15.4.1998 which decree was sought to be executed by the respondent. The demised premises were earlier in possession of one Khushi Ram. Father of the petitioner had filed a suit against the present respondent to declare that he was in possession of the shop which was initially decreed by the Civil Court on 6.9.2003 and the appeal followed which was allowed on 25.10.2004 holding Mohan Lal to be in unauthorised CR No. 3124 of 2010 2 possession. The petitioner is daughter of Mohan Lal. She therefore cannot claim any better status in the property than what her father was having who was declared as an unauthorised tenant. The respondent in whose favour preliminary decree passed on 5.6.1980 and affirmed in appeal on 15.4.1998 is thus entitled to the possession of the property which he was wrongly denied by the father of the petitioner in the first instance and now by petitioner herself. Objections of the petitioner are rightly appreciated by the Executing Court while dismissing the same. There is no ground to interfere. Dismissed. July 23, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge