Civil Revision No. 3359 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3359 of 1991 Date of Decision: 8.10.2010 Krishan Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Ram Chand and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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: Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The judgment-debtor is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 5.8.1991, whereby the property of the Judgment Debtor was ordered to be put to auction to recover the decretal amount. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6000/- on 31.1.1985. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are the mortgagees and landlord of the two storeyed building in which the defendants are the tenants @ Rs.150/- as monthly rent with effect from 14.5.1981. An ejectment petition was filed in the Court of the learned Rent Controller as the defendants have not paid the arrears of rent. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed arrears of rent for the period Civil Revision No. 3359 of 1991 [2] 31.1.1982 to 30.1.1985. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 30.3.1987. In the said suit, the defendants (the present petitioner) have not led any evidence. In execution of the decree, the property of the defendants was attached. The order of the sale of the suit property was stayed subject to furnishing of Bank Guarantee. But since the Bank Guarantee was not furnished, the learned Executing Court ordered the sale of the property of the Judgment Debtor. The petitioner relies upon an order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 8.1.1998, wherein the mortgage relied upon by the petitioner in the said eviction petition was found to be never acted upon by either of the parties. The ejectment petition was dismissed. It is also argued by the petitioner that subsequently, an appeal was filed and on the basis of the written statement filed by the present petitioner, it was held that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Except the said finding being reversed, the judgment of the trial Court was maintained. It is argued that once the mortgage deed was found to be not a genuine document by the Rent Controller, therefore, such finding would hold the field unless reversed on merits and the approach of the Appellate Authority in accepting the appeal on the basis of the written statement filed by the respondents, cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner has tried to rely upon the rent proceedings to avoid the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court for recovery of Rs.6,100/- towards arrears of rent. Even if the ejectment petition has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the mortgage deed is not proved, but the learned Appellate Authority has returned a finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Civil Revision No. 3359 of 1991 [3] The petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute such finding without challenging the order of Appellate Authority or the decree of the Civil Court, which has attained finality. Consequently, in execution of the decree for recovery, the property of the Judgment Debtor, can be put to sale. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 8.10.2010 ds