Ashok Kumar vs Parshotam Dass and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned executing court by which the objections raised by him were rejected. A few facts.

Respondent - Parshotam Dass filed an application for the ejectment of Shri Niranjan Dass. This application was allowed by the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantonment vide order dated August 8, 1988. Having got the order in his favour, the respondent initiated proceedings for execution and eviction of Niranjan Dass. Ashok Kumar the present petitioner filed an objection petition dated April 22,1989. He pleaded that Niranjan Dass was never a tenant in the shop in dispute nor he ever occupied it. He further pleaded that he had been doing the business of karyana goods and selling the vegetables in the shop since 1982. Vide order dated February 15, 1991, Sub Judge 1st Class, Ambala Cantonment dismissed his objection petition. In the meantime, in October, 1988, the petitioner had instituted a suit for permanent injunction which is still pending. In that suit, an interim order was passed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law.

The execution proceedings initiated by the respondent were continuing. The Bailiff reported that the degree could not be executed as the petitioner was objecting to the vacation of the premises. Consequently, Police help was ought. The petitioner again objected. It was inter alia, contended that taking possession through the help of the police is not permissible as the civil court had issued a temporary injunction that the petitioner shall not be evicted except in due course of law. The learned Executing Court having rejected this objection, Ashok Kumar has approached this Court through the present petition.

Mr. Malhotra has raised a two fold contention. Firstly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been a tenant since the year 1982 and that he cannot be excited in pursuance to an, order passed against Niranjan Dass. Secondly, it has been contended that eviction with the help of the police is not eviction in due course of law. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent landlord.

It is the admitted position that the objections raised by the petitioner were considered by the Executing Court and rejected vide order dated February 15, 1991. These objections were raised in the instant executing proceedings. This order was not challenged by way of appeal or revision before any court. It had consequently become final. Once this order had become final, a second objection petition on the same ground is not maintainable. It also deserves mention that the petitioner has already initiated proceedings for a declaration that he is the tenant. The said proceedings are still pending. Till such time as he is declared to be a tenant, he cannot, after the rejection of the objections raised by him, claim a right to continue in the premises.

Mr. Malhotra has filed an application for adducing additional evidence. Leaving aside the fact that the entire evidence was available to the petitioner and was yet not produced before the Executing Court at the appropriate stage, the fact remains that all this evidence can be led in the proceedings which have already been initiated by the petitioner for proving his right and it would not be appropriate for this Court while deciding the present revision to make any comments thereon.

No other point has been urged.

So far as the present revision petition is concerned, it is clearly lacking in merit. There is no error of jurisdiction which may require to be rectified. Accordingly, it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The Executing Court will now proceed in accordance with law.