Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a landlord of the disputed shop. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the petitioner against the respondent nos. 3 and 4, which was decreed exparte on 03.04.2008. On the basis of said decree, the petitioner filed Execution Case No. 06 of 2008, which is pending before the Execution Court. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex -parte decree, however said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide Order dated 10.05.2010 and the Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 21.10.2010. Thereafter, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 approached this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65747 of 2010 and this Court also dismissed the said Writ Petition vide Order dated 08.11.2010 and the matter attained finality.
(2.) THE execution proceeding is pending in the Lower Court since 03.05.2010. It appears that an Application under Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C. had been moved on 19.11.2010 on the basis of the alleged agreement dated 10.11.2010, which is said to be executed by the Landlord/Decree Holder in favour of the Respondent No. 2 and the concerned Court stayed the execution proceedings by Order dated 22.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 16 of 2011, which was dismissed on 26.08.2011 by the Revisional Court. Hence the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is clear from the decree dated 03.04.2008 that the Decree has not yet been satisfied and till date the possession of the disputed shop has not been delivered to the petitioner, as such, there is no question of entering into any tenancy agreement with the Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that forged rent agreement has been set up by the Respondent No. 2 at the behest of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in order to create obstacles in the execution proceedings, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that there was no occasion to him to execute any rent agreement in favour of the respondent no. 2, particularly when the execution proceedings are still going on and the possession has not been delivered to him. It is further submitted that the court below has illegally stayed the execution proceedings.;