V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 4.8.1997 whereby objection petition filed by the respondent No. 2, namely, M/s. Deepak Radios has been accepted and it has been held that it cannot be evicted in execution of decree dated 1.6.1990 passed in civil suit No. 34 of 11.6.1982.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Shander Singh and others (hereinafter referred to as decree-holders) are owners of SCO Nos. 73-74-75, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. Vide rent agreement dated 13.3.1978, decree-holders let out ground floor area measuring 20 ft. x 40 ft. to M/s. Pacific Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as judgment-debtor). Rent was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Rent agreement specifically provided that the tenant shall not sub-let or part with possession of the said tenanted premises or any portion thereof to any person. On expiry of the tenancy period, judgment-debtor did not vacate the premises and that led to filing of civil suit No. 34 of 11.6.1982, titled as Shander Singh and others v. Pacific Enterprises, for possession of the tenanted premises on the basis of valid notice to quit. Judgment-debtor contested the suit and after a long protracted trial, trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.1990 passed decree for ejectment against the judgment-debtor. Judgment-debtor preferred civil appeal No. 163 dated 27.7.1990. Appeal remained pending for a period of six years when on 23.1.1996, by making a statement, judgment-debtor got it dismissed as withdrawn. After dismissal of the appeal, decree-holders in order to recover possession in pursuance of ejectment decree dated 1.6.1990, filed an execution application praying that warrants of possession in respect of the tenanted premises be issued and possession be got delivered. It is at this stage that M/s. Deepak Radios (hereinafter referred to as objector) filed objections against execution of ejectment decree dated 1.6.1990. It took the following pleas :- (i) that its status is not of a sub-tenant. (ii) that it came in possession of the premises in question in December, 179 as a partner of the judgment-debtor. (iii) that its status is that of an actual tenant and not of a sub-tenant. Objector further pleaded that the decree-holders colluded with the judgment-debtor with an intention to evict it and for that matter, it was not made a party to the suit, though it was a necessary and proper party. In reply to the objection petition, decree-holders submitted that they never inducted objector as their tenant or sub-tenant. Decree-holders denied that the objector was an authorised or actual tenant under the decree-holders. It was also denied that there was any collusion between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holders. Vide order dated 3.9.1996, executing Court held that the objector was neither an actual tenant nor an authorised sub-tenant. Possession of the objector was found to be on account of some arrangement entered into between the judgment-debtor and the objector and so, its status qua the demised premises was held not better than that of a licensee. Executing Court further held that any arrangement between the objector and the judgment-debtor will have no effect on the rights of the decree-holders to take possession of the premises in execution of decree dated 1.6.1990. Objection petition, thus, was dismissed. Against order dated 3.9.1996, objector preferred Civil Revision No. 3657 of 1996 in this Court. In the revision petition, objector submitted that the executing Court did not give any opportunity to prove its case. On 24.1.1997, when the revision petition came up for hearing before me, counsel appearing on behalf of decree-holders stated that the decree-holders shall have no objection if the case is remanded to the executing Court for deciding the objection petition afresh after giving an opportunity to the objector to prove its case. In view of the stand taken by the counsel for decree-holders, the case was remanded to the executing Court to decide the objection petition within six months. It is in pursuance of order dated 24.1.1997 passed Civil Revision No. 3657 of 1997 that the executing Court framed necessary issues and gave an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. After the parties led evidence, executing Court on appreciation of the same, vide order dated 4.8.1997, allowed the objection petition and held that decree dated 1.6.1990 cannot be executed against the objector.
(3.) IN order to hold that decree against the objector is inexecutable, executing Court has held objector to be an authorised sub-tenant. It also held that ejectment order was got passed in collusion with the judgment- debtor. It is this order which is under challenge in the present revision petition.;