J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated September 28, 1987, whereby on the objection petition filed by the tenant -judgment debtor, a local Commissioner was appointed to make certain points clear so as to facilitate proper execution of the decree passed by this Court.
(2.) EVICTION order passed against the tenant which was maintained upto the High Court. In execution he took the objections that there was no passage except the staircase to the chaubaras in his possession as a tenant under one Ravinder Kumar Khullar and therefore, he could not be ejected from the demised premises That application was contested on behalf of the landlord on the ground that the said Ravinder Kumar Khullar, the other landlord, had agreed with Baldev Raj the transferor in relation to the decree -holder vide written agreement dated September 10, 1973, that he shall have no right whatsoever in the stair case, in question However, the learned executing court thought it proper to appoint a commission in order to find out whether the judgment -debtor could be ejected from the remaining half portion of the house, in his possession as a tenant under Ravinder Kumar Khullar. The learned Counsel for the decree -holder submitted that after having lost up to the Supreme Court, no objections were maintainable on behalf of the tenant and that the objection petition filed by him was an abuse of the process of the Court. Moreover, no such objections were taken by the tenant during the ejectment proceedings, and therefore, the tenant could not be allowed to take this objection for the first time in execution proceedings. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.B.I. Banarsi Dass and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Shree Amar Trading Co. (1989 -1) 95 P.L.R. 29.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find merit in this revision petition.;