1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision no. 4 of 2010 Mohan Lal Katariya ………… Revisionist Versus Sri Sachin Sehgal & another …………Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Tarun P.S.Takuli, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the caveator/ opposite party. S.C.C. suit no. 8/2004 Sachin Sahgal Vs. Vipin Kataria was filed by Sri Sachin Sahgal, the landlord against his tenant Vipin Kataria for the recovery of arrears of rent and possession, which was decreed by a judgment dated 9th July,2007, against which, the tenant Vipin Kataria filed a civil revision no. 35/2007,which was dismissed vide judgment dated 5th March,2008. The High Court, while dismissing the revision granted time to the tenant till 31st December, 2008 for vacating the premises in question upon furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he would deposit the entire dues up to 8th April, 2008 and, further pay damages month to month till the premises was vacated. Inspite of this direction, the tenant did not comply with the conditions nor gave an undertaking and accordingly S.C.C. Execution Application No. 6/2008 was filed by the landlord for the recovery of arrears, rent, damages, cost as well as possession of the property. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the applicant Mohan Lal Kataria, alleging himself to be the father of Vipin Kataria, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99 and 100 read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting to the execution proceedings. The applicant contended that he was the real tenant and that his son was 2 living with him and, that his son Vipin Kataria, in collusion with the landlord, had hatched a conspiracy to oust him. The applicant, in support of his submission, filed a ration card as well as a voter card to indicate that he was a bona fide tenant and was residing in the premises in question. The executing court, after consideration, rejected the application of the applicant and directed the matter to proceed further for the execution of the decree. The applicant, Mohan Lal Kataria, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the applicant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. Much emphasis was made by the learned counsel with regard to the ration card and the voter card, which had been filed before the executing court and submitted that the said evidence was nowhere considered by the executing court and that his application was rejected summarily without considering this evidence. This court has perused the objection filed by the applicant and one finds that only a bald averment has been made alleging himself to be a tenant. No proof has been filed with regard to question of payment of rent or any agreement indicating that he was a bona fide tenant of the landlord. The mere fact that the applicant has filed a ration card or a voter car does not indicate that he is a tenant in the premises in question. It only indicates that he could be a resident in the premises in question. The said document does not prove that there is a relationship between the applicant as a tenant with his landlord. On the other hand, the executing court has observed that the applicant as well as his son had been living in the premises and it was not possible for him to know about the suit filed by the landlord against his son, which was filed in the year 2004,in which a decree was passed in the year 2007 and a revision was dismissed by the High Court in the year 2008. The 3 executing court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the objection filed by the applicant was nothing else but to delay the execution proceedings. This court further finds that the applicant himself has filed a suit no. 726/2007,which is pending consideration before the trial court. In the light of the aforesaid, this court finds that the applicant has misused the process of the court by filing an objection under Section 47 read with order 21 Rule 99 of C.P.C.. Such objection was rightly and validly rejected by the executing court. In the light of the aforesaid, the court does not find any merit in the revision and is dismissed summarily. The executing court is further directed to proceed with the execution proceedings on a day to day basis. Registry is directed to remit a certified copy of this order to the executing court within a week from today for necessary compliance. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 11.3.2010 Nishant 4