Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-7) whereby the application for restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) The brief facts emerging out of the instant revision petition are that respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition i.e. Rent Application No.135 of 2002 on 25.9.2002 against respondent No.2. The said ejectment application was disposed of vide order 12.10.2002 on the basis of statement suffered by respondent No.2 wherein he had undertaken to vacate the demised premises within one month from the date of order.
(3.) Petitioner filed objections against the execution of the aforesaid eviction order dated 12.10.2002 making averments that he is the tenant in the shop in dispute and JD Rajan Kumar was neither a tenant nor had any right in the shop in question. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- under the respondent-landlord on the basis of rent note dated 7.6.1993. The aforesaid objections filed by the petitioner were rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 28.8.2004. There levant part of the said order reads thus: "A perusal of the file reveals that an ejectment order has been passed against Rajan Kumar in respect of property bearing shop No.450/1, situated at Bagichi Paira Mal, outside Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar belonging to Mandir Thakur Dwara and Shivala Trust. This ejectment order was passed on 12.10.2002. The objector Sh. Suresh Kumar is saying that when the bailiff came to the spot for taking the possession of the shop, then he came to know that the decree holder had impersonated some wrong person in his place and falsely obtained the ejectment order. He is saying that he is in possession of this shop. The learned counsel for the DH has placed on record the rent deed which Rajan Kumar has executed in favour of DH at page No.3 of the said rent note, its last lines are important. In the rent note itself it is stated that he has taken the possession of the same from Smt. Nirmala wife of Sh. Suresh Kumar, who is present objector and he had given the money to Smt. Nirmala and her husband Sh. Suresh Kumar for leaving the possession and now Nirmala and her husband had no concern regarding their tenant ship rights over the property and it is further written that at the asking of Suresh Kumar he had executed a fresh rent note in favour of Secretary, Sh. Vijay Kumar and one of the attesting witnesses of the said rent note is Sh. Suresh Kumar, the present objector. Alongwith it a receipt has also been placed on record that the arrears of rent had been paid by Suresh Kumar and he had left the possession. It is also duly signed by Suresh Kumar on 17.1.2001. All these facts have come on the file reveals that especially the rent note which Rajan Kumar against whom the decree holder had obtained the ejectment order, reveals that earlier the shop which Rajan Kumar had taken on rent was on rent with Smt. Nirmala wife of Sh. Suresh Kumar. They were in arrears of rent. Then some sort of arrangement had taken place. Smt. Nirmala wife of Suresh Kumar the present objector, left the possession in favour of Rajan Kumar after obtaining from him some money as depicted in the rent note. Then her husband also executed a receipt in this respect that previous arrears of rent had been paid and he had left the possession bearing shop No.B-1/450 and then afterwards this shop was taken on rent by Rajan Kumar, by executing a fresh rent note in favour of decree holder. The important fact is that the rent note which Rajan Kumar had executed in favour of DH, in that rent note Suresh Kumar is one of the attesting witness and in Clause No.10 this fact regarding his wife handing over the possession to Rajan Kumar and further executing of the receipt clears all the picture. It appears that the present objections have been filed just to gain some ulterior benefits. There is no merit in the same. Hence, the same stands dismissed and further there is no question of any stay of executing proceedings. Pronounced in open court this 28th day of August, 2004.";