- (1.)This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing orders dated 16-3-2002 and 9-10-2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul and the Addl. District Judge, Narnaul dismissing the application of the plaintiff petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Cr. P. C. 1908.
(2.)The petitioner tenant had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the landlord - respondent defendant No. 1 Nitya Nand to (for) not to interfere in the possession over the shop in dispute as fully described in the heading of the suit. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that brothers of the tenant petitioner namely Lal Chand and Har Chand, defenda nt respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have contested the litigation against the landlord- defendant- respondent No. 1 and they have lost the same up to the Supreme Court. It has further been found that the aforementioned defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had executed a rent note on 28-6-1989 and in pursuance thereto extensive repair of the demised shop was undertaken. When the execution proceedings were instituted by the landlord defendant respondent No.1 an objection was raised on behalf of the tenant - petit ioner that they were not parties to the earlier ejectment proceedings where defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were sought to be ejected from the demised shop. On that basis it was urged that no execution can be ordered against the tenant petitioner. However, bo th of them filed a civil suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.
(3.)Shri Amit Jain, learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has argued that the tenant - petitioner had inherited the tenancy rights of his father Jutha Ram and they were never a party to the proceedings which culminated in the Supreme Court upholding the claim of the landlord - defendant respondent No. 1 directing the ejectment of the other legal heirs namely defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel has also urged that the tenant petitioner were also not party to the rent note dated 28-6-1989 in pursuance to which extensive repair of the shop was undertaking and it was virtually re-laid. Therefore, in the absence of th ere being a party their right of tenancy cannot be jeopardised.