SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.B Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by petitioner for quashing the order dated 24.7.2009 passed by J.S.C.C., Varansi in Misc. Case No. 83 of 2001 and order dated 14.9.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Varanasi in Revision No.42 of 2007, Annexure No.13 to the writ petition. It appears that respondent No.1, who is owner of the house in dispute filed a suit for ejectment against one Pt. Gauri Dutta Smarak Vikash Samiti (tenant). Inspite of the notice, no body has appeared, therefore, the suit was decreed ex parte for arrears of rent and ejectment on 19.10.2000. Then an application was made under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C for execution of the said order. Petitioner alleges that he is in possession of the property in dispute from 1982 but when he came to know regarding the ex parte decree, filed an objection. In the said proceeding, the objection was rejected recording a finding that this property belongs to one Sushila Devi and in the year 1999, it was sold to one Smt. Durga Devi by a registered sale deed. In execution proceeding, Smt. Sushila Mishra made a statement that petitioner, i.e., Dr. Ram Sukh Tripathi was never a tenant and no rent was ever paid. The ground floor of the said premises was allotted to Pt. Gauri Dutta Smarak Vikash Samiti on 5.1.1971 and from that date, they are in possession of the property in dispute.
(3.) FURTHER while considering the objection, a finding has been recorded that there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant and no document has been submitted that to whom rent was paid by the petitioner. Further a finding has been recorded that from the document, it clearly appears that in case, it is presumed that he is in possession on behalf of Samiti and as the ejectment decree has already been passed against the Samiti, therefore, petitioner having no right independently as a tenant, could withheld the property and has got no right to make an objection in the execution proceeding. Admittedly, petitioner is an un-authorised occupant. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.07, a revision has been filed which was also dismissed.;