CR No. 7214 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7214 of 2008 Decided on : 24-12-2008 Smt. Kiran Bala and others . ...Petitioners VERSUS Sumitra Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Surabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioners who are the tenants were proceeded against by the respondent in a civil suit seeking their eviction. The petitioners are the tenants on the suit land. The suit was preferred because the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable, the building being less than 10 years of age. The respondent-landlord succeeded in the civil suit and the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the learned Trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide orders dated 19.2.2004. The respondent thereafter preferred the execution petition in which an objection was raised by the petitioners primarily saying that in another suit against the respondent-landlord preferred by Lal Chand, he was not declared to be the owner and the subject matter of that litigation is pending in a Regular Second Appeal before this Court. The Executing Court dismissed the objection by observing that a valid decree exists in favour of the respondent and the Executing Court cannot look beyond the CR No. 7214 of 2008 2 decree which has attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the question of ownership is still to be determined, the executing proceedings should have been kept in abeyance till the matter in Regular Second Appeal is decided. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition is without any merit. Concededly, suit of the respondent-landlord was decreed in his favour after directing the petitioners to be evicted from the premises in question, the question of ownership which was raised in this very suit has been left open as it was determined that the respondent is the landlord even though he may not be the owner. The petitioners have not denied that they were inducted as tenants by the respondent. Besides, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgement and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 23.2.2001 was also dismissed, implying thereby that the findings have been affirmed. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be termed to be erroneous and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that some time be granted to the petitioners to make alternate arrangements as they are in possession of the property since long. I have considered the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the property since long, I deem it appropriate to direct that in the event of the petitioners submitting an undertaking before the Executing Court within CR No. 7214 of 2008 3 a period of three weeks from today to the effect that they shall hand over vacant physical possession of the suit property to the respondent-landlord on or before 30.6.2009, the execution proceedings shall remain in abeyance. The petitioners shall continue to pay the rent as they have been paying till now including the arrears of rent, if any, which they shall pay alongwith undertaking. Failure to furnish the undertaking within the stipulated period shall result in automatic denial of the benefit of this order to the petitioners. December 24 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge