- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri M. A. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. K. Arora, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent No. 5-Rajesh Kumar, who appeared through caveat.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 6-Dharm Singh is real brother of petitioner. Landlord respondent No. 5 filed suit for eviction against respondent No. 6-Dharm Singh claiming therein that Dharm Singh alone was the tenant of the accommoda tion in dispute. The suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 270 of 1995. The suit was dismissed on 4. 8. 2000 by J. S. C. C. , Meerut. Against the said judgment and decree, respondent No. 5 filed S. C. C. Revision No. 200 of 2000. The revision was allowed by A. D. J. , Court No. 8, Meerut on 16. 11. 2002. Revisional Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the J. S. C. C. and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Against the said judgment and decree, respondent No. 6-Dharm Singh filed writ petition No. 21700 of 2003. When the said writ petition was called as fresh on 19. 5. 2003, no one ap peared for the petitioner, hence the said writ petition was directed to be listed for admission in the next cause list. Thereafter, the said writ petition was listed on 16. 7. 2003 and was passed over on the illness slip of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, neither said writ petition was ever listed nor any application for listing was filed. Accommodation in dispute is a shop, rent of which is only Rs. 40 per month. The shop in dispute is situate in Bakari Mohalla Lal Kurti, Meerut. In the plaint of the aforesaid suit, it was also alleged that Dharm Singh had sub-let the shop in dispute to petitioner Suraj Bhan his real brother and that Dharm Singh had shifted to Kurukshetra. In the said suit, petitioner filed application for impleadment. In the impleadment application, it was stated by the petitioner that the shop in dispute had been taken on rent by him and his brother Dharm Singh. Annexure-2 to this writ petition is the copy of the said impleadment application. It was also alleged that as Dharm Singh was elder brother, hence receipts were issued in the name of Dharm Singh. J. S. C. C. , Meerut allowed the said impleadment application through order dated 9. 1. 1998, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said or der, it was mentioned that as applicant (i. e. Suraj Bhan) claimed himself to be joint tenant, hence it was proper to implead him. However, the order dated 9. 1. 1998 was set aside in revision No. 71 of 1998 allowed by 7th A. D. J. , Meerut on 23. 10. 1998. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said judgment, it was observed that if petitioner had any independent right in the shop in question, then he could file application under Order 21 Rules 97 to 100, C. P. C. after the decree was passed, if the suit was decreed for possession. Meanwhile, petitioner had also filed an injunction suit being O. S. No. 633 of 1996. In the said suit of 1996, an interim order was passed on 11. 10. 1996 that petitioner should not be evicted except in accordance with law, which was converted into status quo order on 10. 3. 1998 with the consent of the parties.
(3.) IT appears that R. C. & E. O. /d. S. O. , Meerut also declared vacancy of the shop in dispute through order dated 4. 7. 2000. In Para 15 of this writ peti tion, it is mentioned that against the said order also writ petition has been filed, however number of the said writ petition has not been mentioned. Thereafter, in execution proceedings, petitioner filed application under Order XXI, Rules 97 to 100, C. P. C. The said application was rejected on 30. 7. 2005 by J. S. C. C. , Meerut. The said judgment and order is contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 06 of 2003 and was filed in Execution Case No. 02 of 2003. Against the judgment and order dated 30. 7. 2005, S. C. C. Revision No. 55 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner. A. D. J. /special Judge (S. C. /s. T. Act), Meerut dismissed the revision on 22. 9. 2007, hence this writ petition. In this writ petition, apart from the orders dated 30. 7. 2005 and 22. 9. 2007 passed on petitioner's application un der Order XXI, Rules 97 to 100, C. P. C. the following two orders have also been challenged through this writ petition.;