- (1.) CLAIMING from late Smt. Raj Karni widow of Manohar Lal Grover, the present respondent Gobind Sagar son of Sh. Chander Parkash Grover Legal Representative of Raj Karni brought a civil suit No.41 of 1994 before the trial Court for redemption of the mortgage deed dated 21st October, 1992against the petitioner, defendant Raman Kumar. The suit was contested by the petitioner. The Civil Court passed preliminary decree on 08th October,1996. The final decree followed on 01 st September, 1997. The decree was not appealed against by the petitioner. However, he asserts that even though he lost the case but he remained in possession of the shop in dispute. He claimed that the decree holder through her attorney had relinquished and surrendered her rights over the shop in favour of the petitioner in the presence of one Ajit Singh for a consideration of Rs.1.5 lacs which stood paid up to the year 2001 in five instalments. The decree holder filed an execution application just short of 12 years on 02 nd August,2008 before the trial Court for due performance of the decree. The petitioner filed objections in the execution proceedings raising various preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the petition, non -joinder of Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short 'BBMB') which was a necessary party since it had leased the property to the predecessor -in -interest of Smt. Raj Karni, her late husband Manohar Lal Grover. The objections were contested by the respondent -decree holder. The Court framed five triable issues. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases in execution, the decree having attained finality as no further appeal was filed. The objections have been rejected by the impugned order against which the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IT may not be out of place to mention that BBMB has filed a suit against the LRs of late Smt. Raj Karni, the decree holder and the petitioner for declaring the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as null and void and not binding on the rights of the Board in the leased out shop in dispute. This suit was filed on 25th October, 2013. Besides, BBMB has also proceeded against the petitioner and the private defendants under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to recover possession of shop No.47 measuring 192 sq. yards at Main Market, Nangal Township, Ropar. The petitioner is, therefore, trying to protect his possession of the disputed shop against the plaintiff in the civil suit decreed against the Board. It is the say of the BBMB that the lease agreement was drawn between the Board and the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff, viz late Manohar Lal Grover. Raman Kumar has no rights whatsoever under the lease deed and is an outsider to the lease agreement and would thus have no locus standi as against the Board as borne out from the documents on record.
(3.) MATTER taken on Board for final disposal by consent. Heard Mr. Amit Rawal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.N. Moudgil, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent. Mr. Rawal submits that Smt. Raj Karni died issueless and had received amounts towards the disputed shop and his client was therefore in rightful possession of the premises in question. He submits that the decree is inexecutable as it is a nullity and Court cannot create future rights except to declare them as existing on the date of the suit. He points out that an application filed by BBMB under Order 21 Rule 102 in the execution proceedings was dismissed by the executing court which led the Board to bring a separate suit against the parties, the petitioner and the respondent. In the suit filed by the Board before the civil court, it has been pleaded that the original lessee Sh. Manohar Lal had expired. There was no provision in the lease agreement that property under lease would pass on to the legal heirs by way of natural succession. Smt. Raj Karni, plaintiff, the widow of Manohar Lal did not disclose or inform the Board of the death of the original lessee. There was clear violation of Clauses 4 and 9 of the lease agreement since additions, alterations and encroachments have been made in front of the shop in question and there were further violations of the law in subletting and delivering possession to Raman Kumar, JD without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority of the Board. From this, Mr. Rawal submits that possession of his client of the suit property is an admitted fact and, therefore, deserves to be protected to await the decision of the suit filed by the Board in the civil court and also till the proceedings taken out by it against both LR of late Smt. Raj Karni and the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 for unauthorised occupation of the demised premises.;