SUKHDEV SINGH KANG, J. - (1.) SUSHIL Kumar and Anil Kumar, the two minor sons of Ishwar Chand have filed this revision petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra, dismissing their objections filed under rules 99 and 100 of Order 21, read with section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the execution proceedings filed by Ved Parkash, respondent landlord.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition may be recapitulated. Ved Parkash filed an application under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') against Moman Lal, grandfather of the present petitioners, for ejectment from the suit property on a number of grounds including non-payment of rent. Moman Lal appeared and contested the application. He filed written statement alleging that he was not a tenant in the premises, in dispute, and he had vacated the same in October, 1976, and handed over possession to Ved Parkash, landlord, after making final payment of rent prior to October, 1976. The Rent Controller did not accept the pleas raised by Moman Lal and ordered his eviction. Moman Lal went up in appeal.
(3.) THE learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and held that Moman Lal was a tenant under Ved Parkash. He had not paid the rent. He had not vacated the premises and delivered possession thereof to Ved Parkash. Sushil Kumar and Anil Kumar, the present petitioners, along with their father Ishwar Chand were residing in the disputed premises along with Moman Lal at all material times. The appeal filed by Moman Lal was dismissed. Ved Parkash filed an application for execution of the orders passed by the Authorities under section 18 of the Act. Sushil Kumar and Anil Kumar filed objections before the Executing Court. They pleaded that they had purchased one-fourth share of the suit-property on November 5, 1976, and had been delivered possession thereof by Smt. Shanti, who was the previous co-owner of one-fourth share along with Ved Parkash and others. They were in possession of the disputed property in their own right and on their own account. They were not parties to the ejectment proceedings and the decree was not binding on them. It may be mentioned here that the objectors had filed a civil suit on December 12, 1979, for permanent injunction, restraining Ved Parkash and other co-sharers from interfering with their possession. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge. The appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed. However, the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal observed : "As a result of my discussion above, the present appeal merits dismissal and is dismissed as such. Judgment and decree of the trial Court are maintained but it is clarified that the defendant will be within his rights to take possession from the plaintiffs in execution of any legal order or decree." In the earlier portion of the judgment he had also observed that the question as to whether Anil Kumar and Sushil Kumar, objectors (Plaintiffs in the suit) were residing in the property, in dispute, in their own right will be determined by the Executing Court as and when such a question is raised.;