Civil Revision No.4442 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4442 of 2011 Date of decision 25.7.2011. Malkiat Singh Bansal ...... Petitioner. versus Kamlesh Kumar Kalia ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. G.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI . J. The respondent-tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 1.6.2011 vide which the objections preferred by the tenant-petitioner against the eviction order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the then learned Rent Controller, Phillaur were dismissed. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he is tenant in one shop No.B-VIII-266 Naya Bazar, Phillaur and is using the same for his own use and purposes and to earn his livelihood. The said premises was let out Civil Revision No.4442 of 2011 2 to him by Mata Parshad and after his death Surinder Kumar Kalia started receiving rent from him. Surinder Kumar Kalia started harassing the objector on one pretext or the other and forced him to vacate the demised premises. After the death of Mata Parshad, his estate was inherited by his legal heirs and property in dispute fell to the share of Kamlesh Kumar Kalia in the records of the Municipal Council, Nurmahal on 16.12.2005. Surinder Kumar Kalia forged and fabricated the power of attorney of his brother Kamlesh Kumar Kalia and filed false and frivolous present execution on the basis of the said power of attorney and succeeded to obtain warrant of possession in his favour from the Court. Respondent-landlord appeared and denied the allegations levelled by the tenant and pleaded that specific power of attorney was given to him for filing the civil case/execution. The executing court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the records, dismissed the objection vide order dated 1.6.2011. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 1.6.2011, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that execution application has been filed by Shri Surinder Kumar Kalia on the basis of power of attorney dated 18.11.2004. It is contended that as per that power of attorney Shri Surinder Kumar Kalia was not competent to file the execution petition against the order dated 17.9.2008 passed by Rent Civil Revision No.4442 of 2011 3 Controller, Phillaur. It is alleged that power of attorney in favour of Smt. Kalia in respect of his father Shri Kamlesh Kumar Kalia is forged and fabricated one. The subsequent power of attorney does not give power to Surinder Kumar Kalia to file the execution petition. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file. From the perusal of the file, it is revealed that ejectment case No.13 of 2006 was allowed by Rent Controller, Phillaur vide order dated 17.9.2008 under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The learned Executing Court has rightly observed that the present objections have been filed only to delay the execution of warrant of possession. The judgment debtor approached this Court by filing civil revision against the order of eviction, which was also dismissed. The Executing Court has observed that from the photo-stat copy of the power of attorney dated 18.11.2004, it reveals that Kamlesh Kumar Kalia has given power of attorney to Surinder Kumar Kalia to act on his behalf and allowed him to fight cases on his behalf. The proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act have been enacted by the Parliament in order to give speedy relief to the Non-Residents Indian. In spite of the fact that eviction order has become final, the present objection petition has been filed before the Rent Controller just to gain time. It cannot be said that Surinder Kumar Kalia has no locus standi to file the eviction petition on behalf of his father Kamlesh Kumar Kalia. So, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Civil Revision No.4442 of 2011 4 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 25, 2011 sv