C.R. No. 1988 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1988 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.07.2010 Ved Parkash .......... Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, to challenge the order dated 25.2.2010, passed by the learned executing Court, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 against his eviction, in pursuance to a decree passed against Jagdish Singh, stands dismissed. The respondent / landlord sought eviction of his tenant Jagdish Singh from the premises in dispute, and succeeded in the year 1984, before the learned Appellate Authority. The order passed by the learned Appellate Authority was upheld by this Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Respondent No.1 / Decree-holder moved an execution C.R. No. 1988 of 2010 -2- ***** application seeking possession of the property from the tenant. The tenant appeared, but did not raise any objection. The petitioner filed 3rd party objections by claiming, that after eviction of the tenant respondent No.1, landlord rented out the premises to the petitioner herein on 1.7.2008, by way of oral agreement. If the objections was based merely on the ground, that there was an oral agreement of tenancy, without further proof, the learned executing Court could have been justified in rejecting the objections summarily, by treating them to be frivolous. In the present case, the petitioner in support of the third party objections, had placed on record, two money order receipts showing deposit of the rent for a particular period, which was received by respondent No.1, and respondent No.1 in the written statement had not disputed the receipt of rent. In that eventuality it was necessary for the learned trial Court to have treated, the objections filed by the petitioner to be the third party objections, and should have framed the issues, and allowed parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stand. To decide as to whether the tenancy claim was genuine or was a false plea to defeat the right of the decree-holder. In no case the objections could have been summarily rejected, in view of prima facie proof of payment of rent. The case is remanded back to the learned executing Court with direction to frame the issues and thereafter allow the parties to lead evidence, to prove their respective stand. Keeping in view, that the order of eviction was passed C.R. No. 1988 of 2010 -3- ***** way back in the year 1984, and the landlord is trying to get possession of the premises in dispute since then. The learned executing Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the objections by following procedure envisaged under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 and dispose of the objections, within six months by giving two opportunities to each of the party to lead evidence, in support of their claim. Revision allowed. 26.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE