AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
The order impugned in this writ petition has been passed by Execution Court observing that objection of petitioners that they are not the tenant but owner of premises in dispute cannot be looked into in the execution proceedings since this issue was raised by petitioner in the regular proceedings and both the courts below have recorded finding against them. Even a writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 11783 of 1999, filed challenging the orders of courts below, has been dismissed by this Court on 13.08.2008 with further imposition of damages to the extent of Rs. 1,000/ per month for use and occupation till actual eviction in execution proceedings.
In fact the judgement dated 13.08.2008 would show that the question that petitioner is the owner and not tenant raised before this Court also but did not find favour as is evident from following:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating therein that he is not required to pay any rent as he has raised title dispute. Before the courts below, petitioner contended that he was not the tenant but owner however both the courts below held that respondent was the owner and petitioner was the tenant. Rate of rent is Rs. 30/ per month, that has also not been paid admittedly. As both the courts below have found the petitioner to be tenant, hence during pendency of writ petition, petitioner is bound to pay rent."
Despite that in the execution proceedings petitioners have raised the same issue and when executing court has declined to go beyond the orders under execution, the present writ petition has been filed raising same dispute. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioners could not show as to how it is open to petitioners to raise a question again which has already attained finality up to this Court after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 11783 of 1999 on 13.08.2008.
The petitioners, therefore, as ex facie guilty of abuse of process of law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cost, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/.