C. Revision Petition No. 2896 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C. Revision Petition No. 2896 of 2009 Date of decision : November 17, 2010 Mahesh Kumar ....Petitioner versus Jaishi Ram Goyal ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sandeep Kotla. Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Mahesh Kumar who is legal representative of his deceased father Jagan Nath judgment debtor has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 11.4.2009 passed by the executing court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh thereby dismissing objections filed by the petitioner in execution petition instituted by respondent – decree holder Jaishi Ram Goyal. Petitioner's father Jagan Nath was tenant in the disputed property under the respondent – decree holder. Rent Controller vide order dated 29.1.1992 passed in ejectment petition filed by the respondent against petitioner's father ordered ejectment of the petitioner's father from the demised premises. Appeal preferred against the ejectment order by the C. Revision Petition No. 2896 of 2009 -2- petitioner's father was dismissed by appellate authority vide judgment dated 18.10.1993. Civil revision no. 3815 of 1993 preferred by the petitioner's father in this Court was dismissed in limine by this Court vide order dated 30.11.1993. Petitioner's father has since died and petitioner is his legal representative. Respondent-decree holder filed execution petition in the year 2003 for execution of the ejectment order. Petitioner preferred objections in the execution petition alleging that after petitioner's father lost in appeal against ejectment order, he vacated the demised premises and thereafter the respondent by way of oral tenancy let out the said property to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1994 on rent of ` 500/- per month and since then petitioner is residing there with his family and therefore, in view of fresh tenancy in his favour, he cannot be ejected from the demised premises in execution of the ejectment order passed against his father. The objection petition was resisted by decree holder – respondent who controverted all the averments of the petitioner regarding creation of fresh tenancy and payment of rent by him. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned executing court vide impugned order dated 11.4.2009, Annexure P/1 dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that C. Revision Petition No. 2896 of 2009 -3- fresh oral tenancy was created in favour of the petitioner after his father vacated the demised property pursuant to ejectment order and therefore, petitioner is not liable to be ejected from the demised property in execution of the ejectment order passed against his father. In this context much emphasis was laid by counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the execution petition was filed almost ten years after the appeal preferred by the petitioner's father against ejectment order had been dismissed and if there had been no fresh tenancy, respondent – decree holder would not have waited for ten years to file the execution petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – decree holder contended that no fresh tenancy was created in favour of the petitioner and ejectment order is executable against him being legal representative of his father – judgment debtor. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Appeal preferred by petitioner's father against ejectment order was dismissed on 18.10.1993. Civil revision by petitioner's father filed in this Court was dismissed on 30.11.1993. It is unbelievable that immediately thereafter petitioner's father actually vacated the demised property and gave its possession to the respondent and soon thereafter respondent by oral tenancy let out the demised property to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1994. The respondent after fighting the litigation for ejectment of petitioner's father from the demised property would not have orally let out the same to the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no document of creation of alleged tenancy in favour of the petitioner. In addition to it, there is also no rent receipt regarding alleged payment of rent by the petitioner to the respondent. It C. Revision Petition No. 2896 of 2009 -4- has been observed in the impugned order that no document in the shape of rent receipt etc. has been placed on record by the petitioner in support of objection petition. If fresh tenancy had been created, it would have been through some rent note. In any event, the petitioner would not have been paying the rent without any rent receipt. The petitioner in his objection petition did not even allege that any rent receipt was issued by the respondent. There is another significant aspect of the matter which falsifies the version of the petitioner. In the objection petition the petitioner alleged that rate of rent was ` 500/- per month since inception of oral tenancy in his favour. However, in the suit filed by the petitioner against respondent for permanent injunction, the petitioner alleged that the fresh tenancy was created at the rate of ` 200/- per month which was enhanced to ` 300/- in January, 2000. This circumstance completely belies the version of the petitioner regarding alleged creation of fresh tenancy with effect from 1.1.1994 at rent of ` 500/- per month in favour of the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The impugned order of the executing court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. Execution of the ejectment order is sought to be thwarted by the petitioner by filing meritless objections. The petitioner being legal heir of his father is bound by the ejectment order. The revision petition is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 17, 2010 Judge 'dalbir' C. Revision Petition No. 2896 of 2009 -5-