- (1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner-objector has called in question the impugned order dated 4th May, 2012 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur dated 10th May, 2010 rejecting his objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner, while claiming his possession on a property situated at 75, Sai Niwas, Nav Ghat, Udaipur (for short hereinafter referred to as "the property in question"), on the strength of agreement to sale executed by Shri S.K. Singh, husband of Smt. Gayatri Singh ­ respondent No.3, in the capacity of her power of attorney holder, laid an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to oppose the execution of the decree of eviction for the property in question. In his application, under order 21 Rule 97 CPC, the petitioner-objector has, inter alia, averred that the execution of the decree passed in favour of third respondent­landlord, Gyatri Devi, and against the alleged tenant, Rajendra Singh, is founded on a decree which was passed by the learned Tribunal due to collusion between the rival parties. According to the version of the petitioner-objector, the property is in his possession and the same was never enjoyed by Rajendra Singh in the capacity of a tenant. In fact, Mr. Rajendra Singh never remained tenant of the property in question and as such he never had the possession over the property in question. With these averments, the petitioner has submitted that the possession obtained by the third respondent in execution of decree from Rajendra Singh is illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice at the cost of jeopardizing the just rights of the petitioner. The petitioner in his objections has categorically averred that the husband of third respondent, Shri S.K. Singh, in the capacity of her power of attorney holder has executed an agreement to sale in his favour on 29th July, 2001 and handed over the possession of the property in part performance of the contract on the same day and since then he is in possession of the property and enjoying the said property. Highlighting many facts and circumstances demonstrating the abortive attempts at the behest of Smt. Gayatri Singh to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question, the petitioner has averred in the objections that the decree which was passed against Rajendra Singh is having no impact on the rights of the petitioner which emanate from the agreement to sale. With these averments, in his objections, the petitioner has prayed for rescinding the order dated 22nd March, 2007 and stalling the execution proceedings by way of preserving the property in question with its entire belongings.
(3.) THE objections submitted on behalf of the petitioner were opposed by the respondent-landlord and reply to the said objections were submitted on her behalf. While responding the averments made in the objections that the petitioner has entered in the property in question as a part performance of agreement to sale, the respondent-landlord has alleged that the petitioner was, in fact, an employee of the respondent and in the said capacity, he was allowed to have his abode in one room situated at the ground floor of the property. It was also highlighted by the respondent that the alleged agreement to sale was a spurious document and after its verification by the FSL, it was revealed that the document is forged. On the strength of that report, the respondent has lodged FIR against the petitioner and after investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner before a competent criminal court. With all these averments, the respondent has questioned the legal sanctity of alleged agreement to sale and so also the objections submitted by the petitioner which are essentially founded on the said document. The learned executing Court, after hearing the rival parties and examining the matter threadbare dismissed the objections submitted on behalf of the petitioner vide its order dated 10th May, 2010.;