C.R No. 5844 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C. R. No. 5844 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 24.9.2010 Diwan Chand ... Petitioner Versus Mohan Singh & Anr ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.K.Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) C.M. No. 24459 & 23164– CII of 2010 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R. No. 5844 of 2010 The petitioner – Diwan Chand, has preferred this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 21.8.2010 and 6.9.2010, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya and also for setting aside the warrant of possession issued on 6.9.2010. The facts, in brief, are that Mohan Singh-applicant/respondent No.1 filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against Narinder Singh- respondent No.2 for his ejectment from the shop situated at G.T.Road, in the Municipal Limits of Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The description of the Shop was given as under:- North : Property of Dhanvir Singh. South : Property of Dhanvir Singh. C.R No. 5844 of 2010 (O&M) -2- East : G.T.Road West : Railway Property That shop was fully described by points ABCD in the site plan attached with that ejectment application and Narinder Singh – respondent was ordered to be ejected from the shop. To execute that ejectment order warrant of posession was issued. It was reported by the Bailiff that the disputed shop was lying locked. An application was moved during the execution proceedings by the present petitioner – Diwan Chand for impleading him as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, which is stated to be still pending. An application was filed by respondent No.1 for the execution of warrant of possession with the help of police, which was allowed, vide order dated 19.1.2008. Fresh warrant of possession was issued with a direction to deliver the possession of the shop in dispute to respondent No.1 after breaking the locks with the help of the police. The bailiff went to the spot and found the present petitioner in possession thereof. He also mentioned in his report that respondent No.2 left the possession of this shop since long. The petitioner filed an application for recalling back warrant of possession on the ground that a fraud was being played and the decree-holder (respondent No.1) in connivance with the other respondent obtained ejectment order regarding the shop, which is in his possession and the same was never rented out to respondent No.2. He also pleaded therein that the ejectment order has already been set aside by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), vide judgment dated 12.3.2009, which is already in the knowledge of respondent No.1, as appeal has been filed by him against that judgment and decree. C.R No. 5844 of 2010 (O&M) -3- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the garb of the ejectment order the respondents want to take possession of the shop which is in possession of the petitioner and that the ejectment order itself was obtained by the respondents in connivance with each other in order to dispossess the petitioner, who is coming in possession of that shop in his own right. She also submitted that the shop never remained in possession of respondent No.2 and is in possession of the petitioner from the very beginning. A copy of the judgment dated 12.3.2009, vide which the suit of the petitioner was decreed, is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. That suit was filed by him for declaration to the effect that he is tenant in shop, with the following boundaries, under one Ranjit Singh:- East : G.T.Road West : Railway Property North : Shop in possession of Narinder Singh as tenant South : Shop in possession of Baldev Singh In that suit he also challenged the said ejectment order on the ground that the same was null, void, illegal, ineffective and inoperative so far as his rights are concerned, having been obtained as a result of collusion between the respondents and was not binding upon him. He also prayed for consequential relief for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him and from interfering him in the peaceful possession over the shop. The suit of the petitioner was decreed to that C.R No. 5844 of 2010 (O&M) -4- effect that he was tenant under Ranjit Singh in the shop detailed in the heading of the plaint of that suit as a tenant and that the ejectment order dated 6.11.2001 will not affect his rights. The respondents were restrained from dispossessing him from that shop. The description of the shops, as given in the ejectment order and the suit filed by the petitioner, itself shows that these are two independent shops. The petitioner himself had shown shop in possession of Narinder Singh – respondent No.2 on the northern side of the shop in which he is claiming the tenancy rights. The ejectment order was passed in respect of the other shop and not in the shop in respect of which the petitioner is claiming the tenancy rights. It is very much clear from the report of the bailiff (Annexure P-7) that the warrant of possession is being executed in respect of the shop regarding which the ejectment order was passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any such illegality in the orders under challenge in the revision petition and there is no ground for up-setting the same. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly with the observation that the executing Court shall ensure that only the possession of the shop, description of which has been given in the ejectment order, be got delivered to the decree-holder and not of the adjoining shop in which the petitioner is held to be in possession as tenant. September 24, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge