Civil Revision No.1345 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1345 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 10, 2008 Jaspal Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Satish Kumar & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.H.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Late Sharan Kaur was the tenant in the demised premises. Respondents herein sought her eviction through a rent petition filed before the Rent Controller, Rupnagar, who, vide his order dated 7.9.2001 directed eviction of late Sharan Kaur and for handing over the delivery of vacant possession to the respondents. Civil Revision No.1345 of 2008 : 2 : Respondents then filed an execution petition before the Rent Controller for execution of order dated 7.9.2001. The petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and objected to his dispossession. The Rent Controller dismissed the objection petition on 6.12.2007 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have obtained an ex-parte order dated 7.9.2001 and the petitioner has already moved for setting-aside of this ex-parte order. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has filed a suit claiming to be owner of the demised premises on the basis of a Will executed by Sharan Kaur. It is claimed that upon the death of Sharan Kaur, the petitioner has become owner of the demised premises. The respondents filed a written reply denying the objections raised in the objection petition. It is pointed out that the application filed by the petitioner for setting-aside of the ex-parte eviction order has been dismissed and accordingly the objection petition would not be maintainable and as such is liable to be dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and that is how the present revision is filed. It is seen that the primary ground to resist the execution by the petitioner is that he had filed an application for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. The contention raised is that this ex-parte decree is under challenge. The impugned order, however, would show that the application for setting aside this ex-parte decree passed on 7.9.2001 has already been dismissed. The petitioner could not indicate anything from the record which would show that Civil Revision No.1345 of 2008 : 3 : challenge to the ex-parte decree was still being considered. It is further noticeable that the claim of the petitioner is based on a Will in his favour executed by Sharan Kaur. As per the record, Sharan Kaur herself was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises and was further directed to hand over the vacant possession of the same. If late Sharan Kaur was not able to protect her possession on the ground that she was owner of the shop, possibly she cannot pass on any valid title to the petitioner, who claims to have derived the same due to the Will left by late Sharan Kaur. He will merely step into the shoes of Sharan Kaur and, thus, would not be able to protect his possession on the ground that late Sharan Kaur was the owner of the demised premises. The Appellate Court has considered these aspects and has dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity which would call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. March 10, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE