Civil Revision No. 4435 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4435 of 2011 Date of Decision: 27.7.2011 Darshjit Kaur alias Rano ... Petitioner Versus Harjit Kaur and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.P. Singh Ahluwalia, Avocate for Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 12.3.2011 (Annexure P4), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran, whereby the objections, filed by the petitioner were dismissed being not maintainable and also the order of the Executing Court dated 30.4.2011 (Annexure P5) whereby warrants of possession were issued. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Santokh Singh at the rate of ` 800 per month. The respondents are the legal representatives of Santokh Singh. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 and she has also not paid the house tax. Further, the tenant has impaired the value and utility of Civil Revision No. 4435 of 2011 2 the demised premises. The ground of personal necessity was also pleaded. The petitioner/tenant was proceeded against ex parte on 23.5.1998. The petitioner had also disputed the rate of rent. The Rent Controller, Tarn Taran, vide its order dated 18.12.2002, had accepted the eviction petition and ordered ejectment of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Amritsar, vide his order dated 11.7.2004, has accepted the appeal and directed the tenant to appear before the Rent Controller, Tarn Taran, on 27.7.2004. The Appellate Authority, Amritsar, had directed the Rent Controller, Tarn Taran, to assess provisional rent after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Rent Controller, Tarn Taran, noticed in his order dated 19.3.2007, that the provisional rent was assessed on 21.12.2004 and the tenant had not paid the rent. Thereafter, the tenant has filed an application for review of the order whereby the provisional rent was assessed. The said application was dismissed and thereafter the tenant had not appeared before the Rent Controller and was proceeded against ex parte. For non-payment of provisional rent, the eviction order was passed on 19.3.2007. To give effect to the eviction order dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure P2), the landlord filed an execution petition. The petitioner/tenant filed objections wherein it was stated that the petitioner remained under the treatment of various doctors and was in coma due to hypertension. Therefore, she was proceeded against ex parte. The Executing Court, vide its order dated 12.3.2011 (Annexure P4), had dismissed the objections by observing as under:- “...The main objection taken by the JD is that she Civil Revision No. 4435 of 2011 3 was suffering from mental disorder but no medical certificate has been produced to prove this contention. The second objection taken by her that the ex parte judgment has been passed against her but perusal of the order dated 09.03.07 passed by the Court of Sh. S.K. Singla, Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tarn Taran, shows that the eviction order was passed against the present objector for non payment of rent. So she cannot take plea of passing the ex parte decree against her. So the objections are dismissed being not maintainable. Fresh warrants of possession be issued for 30.04.11...” Mr. G.P.Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Rajeev Kapila, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since the petitioner/tenant is an old lady and is not having a good health, therefore, this Court should grant three years' time to the petitioner to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondents. The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained especially when the tenant has been in arrears of rent since January 1997 and due to various rounds of litigation, has been able to frustrate the rights of landlord. Hence, no ground is made out to cause interference in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 27, 2011 “DK”