RAJESH BINDAL,J. - (1.) THE third party objections of the petitioner, in execution of a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell passed against respondent No. 2, having been dismissed on 15.5.2012, the order has been impugned before this court.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts, as are evident from record, are that an agreement to sell was executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 on 2.7.1994 pertaining to House No. 182, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. The suit filed for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the trial court on 8.3.2002, however, in appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2004. The judgment debtor even failed before this court as RSA No. 390 of 2005 was dismissed by this court on 20.9.2010. Special Leave Petition filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 29.11.2010. It is the aforesaid decree which is under execution. The objections filed by the judgment debtor have already been dismissed. Sale deed was got executed by appointment of a Local Commissioner. When the warrants of possession were issued, the petitioner filed objections claiming that he being a tenant on the ground floor of the premises in dispute cannot be evicted and only symbolic possession could be delivered to the decree holder. The objections having been dismissed on 15.5.2012, the order is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of the property in dispute by respondent No. 2 vide Rent Agreement dated 9.12.2009 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-, for a period of three years. Ever since then he is in possession of the property in dispute. When the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed by respondent No. 2 by using force, he even filed a suit for injunction against her in which respondent No. 2-defendant was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit property. The learned court below should have framed issues while dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner. The same should not have been dismissed summarily.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner was candid in stating that the petitioner is a property dealer and he has no material to show that ever since the tenancy was created, there is any proof for payment of rent to the landlord. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. It is a case in which an agreement to sell was executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 on 2.7.1994 pertaining to House No. 182, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. The suit filed for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the trial court on 8.3.2002, however, in appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2004. RSA No. 390 of 2005 filed by the judgment debtor was also dismissed by this court on 20.9.2010. Special Leave Petition filed by her was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 29.11.2010.;