Civil Revision No. 6027 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6027 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Mehar Singh .....Petitioner Versus Birj Mohan and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a partner of the firm, Punjab Transport Company. Respondents Brij Mohan and Hans Raj, filed a petition for eviction of the tenant under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, in which Kuldip Singh and the present petitioner were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as partners of the Punjab Transport Company. The learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 15.4.2004 after an application for leave to contest was declined. The said order passed by the learned Rent Controller was challenged by Kuldip Singh before this Court. The revision petition was allowed vide order dated 22.5.2006 permitting Kuldip Singh to file written statement. It was directed that if the written statement is Civil Revision No. 6027 of 2010 (O&M) [2] not filed on the date fixed i.e. 9.6.2006, the Rent Controller shall proceed with the decision of the eviction petition in accordance with law. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor Kuldip Singh filed written statement in terms of the liberty granted by this Court, even though Kuldip Singh was the sole petitioner before this Court. An application was filed by the landlord for execution of the decree dated 15.4.2004 for disposal of the petition as per the orders passed by this Court. The said application was disposed of on 6.8.2007 holding that the landlord is within his rights to file eviction petition on the basis of the order dated 15.4.2004 in terms of the liberty so granted. The landlord filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, in which an interim order has been passed assessing the provisional rent. The landlord also sought execution of the decree dated 15.4.2004. The petitioner filed objections to the execution of the decree. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objections filed by the present petitioner. It was found that Kuldip Singh has failed to put in appearance before the Court on 9.6.2006 and that the expression “separate eviction” in the order dated 6.8.2007 is in fact, a typographical mistake as the order dated 15.4.2004 is an executable order in terms of the order passed by this Court. It was also held that the present petitioner and Gurmukh Singh (respondent No.4 in the present petition) have never challenged the eviction order of eviction dated 15.4.2004 passed by the Rent Controller before this Court. Thus it was found that the objections were without any merit and the same were accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Court on an application filed by the landlord has given liberty to the landlord to file a separate eviction petition. Therefore, the order Civil Revision No. 6027 of 2010 (O&M) [3] passed by the Rent Controller on 15.4.2004 is not executable order in pursuance of which the possession can be claimed by the landlord. I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is a case of the dishonest tenant, who has scuttled the process of law for the last four years by raising false and frivolous grounds. Firstly, the petitioner never challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on 15.4.2004. The said order is final qua the petitioner and in execution of the said order, the petitioner is liable to be evicted. Secondly, the order passed by this Court on 22.5.2006 was clear and categorical that if Kuldip Singh-revision petitioner does not file written statement on 9.6.2006, the Rent Controller shall proceed with the decision of the eviction petition, in accordance with law. The words `proceed with the decision of the eviction petition’ are sought to be interpreted to mean that the Rent Controller was to start de-novo. The said interpretation by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived. If the written statement is not filed in terms of the opportunity granted, the only consequence is that the petition under Section 13-B stands allowed and the revision petitioner was not entitled to any other opportunity to contest the eviction proceedings. In view of the said fact, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. The Executing Court is directed to execute the order of eviction expeditiously, in accordance with law. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22.9.2010 ds