Raj Rani and Others vs Balbir Kumar and Another

Jaswant Singh, J.—Legal representatives of judgment debtor No. 2-Ramesh Kumar/tenant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) are in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 4.8.2012 (P2) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Fazilka whereby their objection petition against the execution of the eviction order dated 14.10.2010 u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 1949 Act) has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte eviction order dated 14.10.2010 is pending adjudication and therefore the approach of the Executing Court in dismissing the objection petition is bad in law and liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that the argument is devoid of any merit.

It is apparent from the record that the respondent/landlord-Balbir Kumar Sachdeva filed eviction petition u/s 13 of the 1949 Act seeking to evict the two brothers/tenants namely Gulshan Kumar and Ramesh Kumar from the demised shop.

In the eviction proceedings, respondent Gulshan Kumar appeared and contested the eviction petition by filing written statement whereas his brother Ramesh Kumar/respondent No. 2 failed to put in appearance despite due service by way of munadi. It is not disputed that the tenancy of Gulshan Kumar and Ramesh Kumar is one. It is also not disputed that against the eviction order dated 14.10.2010, Gulshan Kumar preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepur which was dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2011 and the findings affirmed by this Court in CR No. 4614/2011 vide order dated 2.8.2011. It is not the case of legal representatives of Ramesh Kumar that the relationship between the two brothers was not cordial and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the learned trial Court has rightly observed that it is not possible that said Ramesh Kumar was not having knowledge of the proceedings. Be that as it may, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 4.8.2012 (P2). Dismissed.