Jaswant Rai Jain vs Surinderpal Singh Bhuttal and Another

H.S. Brar, J.—It is a revision petition challenging the order dated 23-8-96 of the Rent Controller vide which the objection petition filed by the father of the Judgment-debtor in execution proceedings was dismissed.

Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 1-Col. Surinderpal Singh Bhuttal is the owner of House No. 1013 Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, which is occupied by respondent No. 2-Rakesh Jain son of Jaswant Rai Jain, the petitioner. Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhutal was in the service of Indian Army and retired as Colonel on 21-2-1995. After his retirement he presented a petition on March 28, 1995 before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh supported by an affidavit for eviction of respondent No. 2 Rakesh Jain-tenant by contending that after his retirement from Indian Army, he bona fide requires the premises let out to respondent-Rakesh Jain for residential purposes and he wanted to settle down at Chandigarh permanently along with his widowed mother and other family members. He pleaded that he'' has to vacate the government accommodation and has no other suitable accommodation of his own in the local area of Union Territory at Chandigarh where he could reside with his family. After the aforementioned petition was presented by respondent-Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhuttal, the respondent-tenant Rakesh Jain appeared in response to the summons and on April 7, 1995 made an application u/s 18-A(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') supported by an affidavit praying for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition presented by Col. Bhuttal. In the said application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, respondent-tenant Rakesh Jain stated that the certificate of retirement produced by the appellant was bogus and fabricated as he continued to be in service and therefore, he did not fall in the category of a specified Landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) so as to entitle him to make an application for eviction u/s 13-A of the Act. Respondent-Rakesh Jain further stated*that in fact Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhuttal wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 15,000/- per month which was not acceded to by him and that Col. Surinder Pal Singh Bhuttal had entered into an agreement with Mohit Nanda resident of House No. 2208, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh for sale of the house in question for sum of Rs. 15 lacs and had agreed to deliver vacant possession of the house in question after getting it vacated from Rakesh Jain. The Landlord Col. Bhuttal refuting the allegation of the agreement for kale of the house stated that no such agreement has been executed by him for sale of the house in question to Mohit Nanda as alleged by the respondent-tenant.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusal of the affidavits and the documents produced on record, the Rent Controller dis-believed the allegation with regard to the agreement for sale of the house and rejected the application of the respondent-tenant Rakesh Jain u/s 18-A(4) of the Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the landlord on 30-9-95 by holding that no ground for granting the leave to defend was made out. Rakesh Jain respondent-tenant went up in revision before the high Court challenging the aforementioned order of the Rent Controller. The High court took the view that the Rent Controller was not justified in declining to go into the question of alleged agreement of sale by the appellant-landlord to Mohit Nanda and the same should have been considered by the Rent Controller because if the said allegation is proved, it would surely indicate that the landlord did not require the premises in question for his residence but wanted to dispose of the same for a high price and that the same would lead to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to make out the basic ingredient of Section 13-A of the Act so as to enable him to seek eviction by summary proceeding.

The High Court vide its order dated 28-11-1995 set-aside the order dated 30-9-1995 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh rejecting the application of the tenant filed u/s 18-A(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the ''The Act'') seeking leave to defend the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. This order dated 28-11-1995 of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court of India. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 9-4-1996 the Hon''ble Supreme court of India accepted the appeal of the landlord and set-aside the order dated 28-11-1995 of the High Court and the order of the Rent Controller was restored. The Hon''ble Supreme Court further directed the Rent Controller to proceed with the eviction petition of the landlord and dispose of the same in accordance with the law at the earliest.

Before the order of the Rent Controller dated 30-9-1995 could be executed, as per the direction of the hon''ble Supreme court of India in its judgment dated 9-4-1996, the present petitioner Jaswant Rai Jain, who is none-else but the father of Rakesh Kumar Jain, Judgment-Debtor (Who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this petition) filed an objection petition under order 21(35) and 101 read with Section 47 and 151 C.P.C. against the execution of the order dated 30-9-1995 passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 9-4-1996.

In this objection-petition, Jaswant Rai Jain petitioner has averred that he is in actual physical possession of the entire House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh as a tenant and he is entitled to retain the possession of the said house. The order of the Rent Controller dated 30-9-1995 passed for the ejectment from House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh against Shri Rakesh Jain, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this petition as stated above, is not binding upon him as he was not a party to the proceedings which culminated into the ejectment of Rakesh Jain vide the ejectment order dated 30-9-1995 of the Rent Controller. It is then averred in the objection petition that the order of ejectment is inexecutable against the objector as he is in possession of the house in the capacity of a tenant and is entitled to retain and protect its possession. The objector than averred that he is a tenant in the entire premises/house No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh under a lease agreement executed on behalf of the decree-holder Surinder Singh Bhuttal by his father Gur Kirpal Singh as attorney of Surinder Pal Singh in favour of the petitioner in the year 1979 which was subsequently renewed from that year in his favour. It is then averred that the lease agreement was duly accepted and was executed by the attorney of the decree-holder. The attorney of the decree-holder has also been actually making correspondence with the objector by means of letters confirming the possession of the petitioner as a tenant and the rent of the premises was being paid by the petitioner. The attorney of the decree-holder has been demanding the rent from the objector who has been paying the same. The correspondence between the parties clearly confirms the possession of the objector as a tenant ever since the year 1979. The decree-holder (respondent No. 1-landlord) and the judgment-debtor (R.K. Jain the son of the objector) both have colluded together to obtain the order of ejectment. The objector has come to know of the order of ejectment recently and warrant of possession for the delivery of possession in favour of the decree-holder, cannot be issued legally as the objector can only be evicted in accordance with the provisions of laws.

On notice, reply to the objection-petition was filed by the decree-holder-respondent No. 1, and he denied the allegations made in the objection-petition. It has been averred in the reply that there never existed any privity of contract or privity of estate in between in the decree-holder and the objector, father of the judgment-debtor, at any point of time either at the behest of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh Bhuttal (Retd.) father of the decree-holder or at the behest of the decree-holder himself. It is then reiterated in the reply that the objector had no right, title or interest in the house in question. In order to set up a false claim thereof, he has placed on the record fabricated, forged and inadmissible documents, such as lease agreement dated 1-11-79, 3-8-91 and 1-10-84 purported to have been executed between the objector and the father of the decree-holder as his general attorney, when in fact none of these stood executed between him and the father of the decree-holder as his general attorney. It is then averred that alleged signatures of Brig. Gur Kirpal Singh Bhuttal (Retd) father of the decree-holder are nothing but the product of manipulated forgery and as such has exposed the objector to the resultant prosecution for the commission of an offence punishable Under Sections 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of ejectment dated 30-9-1995 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is then averred in the reply that since the litigation in between the D.H. and the J.D. qua his eviction as a tenant under the decree-holder in respect of his demised tenanted premises describe-able as House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh with which Shri Jaswant Rai Jain objector, his father, remained associated throughout, got finally culminated in the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India through the passing of abovesaid order dated 9-4-1996, therefore, the question of there being a collusion between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, simply does not arise, as alleged. All other allegations mentioned in the objection petition have been denied as being wrong.

In the replication, the objector has broadly denied the averments and the allegation made in the reply and has reiterated the averments made in his objectionpetition.

After hearing the learned counsellor the parties the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide his order dated 23-8-1996 did not find any merit in the objection-petition filed by the father of the J.D. and the same was dismissed. Hence this revision petition before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner before me has contended that the order of the Rent Controller rejecting the objection-petition filed by the petitioner before the executing Court, is not sound and is illegal, erroneous and is liable to be set-aside, on the following grounds:-

(i) The petitioner Jaswant Rai Jain has got the locus-standi to file objections against the execution of the order dated 30-9-1995 of the Rent Controller as he is in actual physical possession of the entire House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh as a tenant and he is entitled to retain the possession of the said house. The order passed for ejectment of the house against Rakesh Kumar though he may be his son, is not binding upon him as he was not a party to the proceedings culminating into the rendering of ejectment order dated 30-9-95. The order of ejectment is inexecutable against the petitioner as he is in possession of the house in capacity of a tenant and is entitled to retain and protect the possession.

(ii) The objector-petitioner is a tenant in the entire premises No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh under a lease agreement executed on behalf of the decree-holder Surinder Pal Singh Bhuttal by his father Brig. Gurkirpal Singh as attorney of Surinder Pal Singh in the year 1979 which was subsequently renewed consecutively from that year in favour of the petitioner. The lease agreement, according to the petitioner, was duly accepted and executed by the attorney of the decree-holder and the attorney of the decree-holder has been actually making correspondence with the objector by means of letters confirming the possession of the objector-petitioner as a tenant and the rent of the premises was being paid by the petitioner. The attorney of the decree-holder has been demanding the rent from the objector who has been paying the same. The correspondence between the parties clearly confirms the possession of the objector as a tenant ever since the year 1979.

(iii) The decree-holder and judgment-debtor both have colluded together to obtain the order of ejectment. The objector has come to know of the order of ejectment recently and warrants of possession for delivery of the possession in favour of the decree-holder legally cannot be issued as objector-petitioner can only be evicted in accordance with the provisions of law.

(iv) The learned Rent Controller should have appreciated the evidence on the file and should have reached the conclusion as to whether the documents including lease deed etc. filed by the objector-petitioner are fictitious after granting proper opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence in their favour. In the absence of declaration of the lease-deed and other letters produced on the file being declared as fictitious or forged it could not be held that the petitioner was not the occupants of the premises in question and had no privity of contact between the decree-holder or his father Brig. Gurkirpal Singh who had leased out the premises in question as an attorney of the decree-holder to the petitioner vide different lease-deeds attached with the objection petition. He has cited Brahmdeo Chaudhary, Adv. Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, , Noorduddin Vs. Dr K.L. Anand, and Nusserwanji E. Poonegar and Others Vs. Shirinbai F. Bhesania and Others, .

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the decree-holder in this case has contended that the petitioner is none else than the father of the judgment-debtor and is living in the same house and he knows the ejectment proceedings going on between the respondent-landlord and Rakesh Jain, his son. He has rather associated with the proceedings from the very beginning. The alleged lease deeds which he has filed with the objection-petition, have been fabricated to defeat the claim of the landlord and to retain the possession of the premises despite the fact that an eviction order has been passed against his son Rakesh Jain and the matter was finalised in favour of the landlord up to the Supreme Court. He has further stated that there is sufficient evidence on the record which shows that the alleged lease-deeds have only been fabricated later on when Rakesh Jain the son of the petitioner-lost his case up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. He further submits that the petitioner may be hauled up for contempt and other criminal proceedings may be initiated against him for forging the documents and for stalling the proceedings of the executing Court without any valid cause. Learned counsel has cited Kazi Akeel Ahmed Vs. Ibrahim and Another, , Pankaj Bhargava and Another Vs. Mohinder Nath and Another, , Zahurul Islam v. Abul Kalam, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 464 and The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, in support of his contentions.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record of the executing court with their help.

It is established on the record that House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh regarding which decree of ejectment has been passed against Rakesh Jain, son of the petitioner and regarding which the present petitioner has claimed himself to be a tenant of the decree holder through his father/attorney Brig. Gurkirpal Singh was leased out to ITBP vide agreement dated 31.12.1976 and it remained in the possession of ITBP till 30.11.1979. This fact is established from letter dated 18.10.79 (at page 237 of the record of the executing Court), issued from the office of Deputy Inspector General, (HP), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (MHA), GOI, PB. No. 1, GPO Simla-1 signed by K.S. Yadav, Commandant Staff (HP), addressed to Brig. Gurkirpal Singh, V & P.O, Bhandohar, District Ludhiana, Punjab, father of the decree holder in which an intimation has been sent to the father of the decree holder that with reference to agreement of lease deed dated 31.12.76 in respect of House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, the house in question was not required by them any more and its possession will be handed over to him on 30.11.79 as stipulated in the lease deed agreement which was made for 35 months. It was further stated in this letter that this letter may be treated as a notice for vacating the house in question. Brig. Gurkirpal Singh was also required to reach at the premises i.e. House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh at 1000 hrs. The letter dated 18.10.79 is re-produced hereunder for ready reference :

REGISTERED A.D.

No. ITBP-HP/QM/ACCOMN/(3)/78 4608

OFFICE OF THE DY INSPECTOR GENERAL (HP), INDO-TIBETAN BORDER POLICE, (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

P.B. NO. 1, GPO Simla

Dated 18th October, 1979

From

The Office of Dy. Inspector General (HP),

Indo-Tibetan Border Police (MHA), GOI,

P.B.No. 1, GPO Simla-1.

To

Brig. Gurkirpal Singh,

Vill. & P.O. Bhanohar,

District: Ludhiana (Punjab).

Sir,

Kindly refer to Agreement Lease Deed dated 31/12/1976 in respect of your House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh.

You are hereby informed that the house in question is not required by us any more and will be handed over to you on 30.11.1979 as stipulated in the Lease Deed Agreement which was made for 35 months. This may please be treated as a notice for vacating the house in question.

Your are requested to reach at the premises (House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh) at 1000 hrs on 29th November, 1979 to take over your house.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(K.S. Yadav)

Commandant Staff (HP)""

In consequence to this letter dated 18.10.79 written to Brig. Gurkirpal Singh, the possession of House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh was handed over to the lessor Cap. SPS Bhattal, V. & P.O. Bhanohar, Distt. Ludhiana Punjab through Brig. (Retd.) Gurkirpal Singh on 30.11.79 (AM), this fact is fortified by a document which is placed on page 239 of the record of the executing court. This document is also re-produced as under for ready reference :

"HANDING TAKING OVER OF KOTHI NO. 1013, SECTOR 27-B CHANDIGARH.

Whereas the lease deed executed on 1.1.1977 between Capt. SPS Bhattal V & PO Bhanohar Distt, Ludhiana (Pb) owner of the house No. 1013/27-B, Chandigarh through Brig. Gurkirpal Singh (Retd) who has been given the special powers of Attorney, hereinafter referred to as the lessor of the one part and DIG (HP) ITB Police hereinafter referred to as the lessee of the other part.

And whereas the lessee (party No. 2) has followed the laid down covenants and conditions, the lessee after giving notice to vacate the house on expiry of lease deed in the interest of Govt. hand over the possession of the house No. 1013, in Sector 27-B to the lessor Capt. SPS Bhattal V & PO Bhanohar Distt. Ludhiana (Pb.) through Brig. (Retd) Gurkirpal Singh on 30.11.1979 (AN).

Lessee

Sd/- 30.11.79

(Chaman Lal)

Witness

For DIG (HP) ITB Police

Sd/- 30.11.79

(M.R. Kashyap)

Lessor

Sd/-

Sd/-

(Hav. Jai Ram)

Brig. (Gurkripal Singh)

From these documents it is further proved that the alleged lease deed dated 1.11.79 which has been produced by the petitioner and which is placed at page No. 167 of the record of the trial court is made up and fabricated. It is clearly proved from the letter dated 18.10.79 addressed by I.T.B.P. to Brig. Gurkirpal Singh, father of the decree-holder that the premises in question was on lease with ITBP till 30.11.79 when its possession was delivered to the decree-holder through his father Brig. Gurkripal Singh. The fakeness of the alleged lease-deed dated 1.11.79 produced by the petitioner is further strengthened by the fact that this lease-deed could not obviously be executed on 1.11.79 between the petitioner and Brig." Gurkirpal Singh father and attorney of the decree-holder Col. Surinder Pal Singh when the possession of the premises in question is proved from the documents mentioned above with ITBP till 30.11.79. I have compared the alleged signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on the alleged lease agreement dated 1.11.79 with the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on the document placed at page No. 239 of the record of the executing court and as described above vide which handing/taking over of Kothi No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh took place between the lessee, ITBP and the lessor Brig. Gurkirpal Singh. Even when seen with a naked eye, the signatures on the alleged lease-deed dated 1.11.79 and the signatures on the document vide which handing/taking over of Kothi No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh took place between ITBP and Brig. Gurkirpal Singh are not of the one and the same person. Authenticity of the letter dated 18.10.79 referred to above and the document of handing taking over of Kothi No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh referred to above is not in doubt and remained un-challenged before the executing court as well as before this Court. Thus, the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh when he signed as a lessor at the time of taking over the possession of Kothi No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh shall be taken as the authentic and genuine signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh. All this evidence clearly shows that signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh have been fabricated on the alleged lease deed dated 1.11.79 produced by the petitioner.

The hollowness of the claim of the petitioner is further proved from a letter dated 4.7.88 which he has himself placed on the file and is found at page 147 of the record of the executing court. The opening lines of this letter written by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh to Jaswant Rai Jain talk about the contract of lease of the house which was started on 1st of November, 1987. It is further written in the letter that the rent for the period from 1st November be sent by a draft at an early date. Reference of Rakesh Jain, Judgment-Debtor also comes in this letter. It would be better if the letter is re-produced in extenso :

"Brigadier Gurkirpal Singh (Retd)

V&PO Bhanohar

Distt. Ludhiana

4.7.88

My dear Jaswant Rai Jee,

Sat Siri Akal

The present contract for the lease was started on 1st Nov. 87. I have not received a penny of rent for this period so far. I had written to you earlier but was informed that you were abroad.

I then received a letter from you in early April that the rent will be dispatched by the end of the month. I......for the draft for a couple of months and had gone to Calcutta for an operation to my eye and for a medical check up. I returned from Calcutta about a week back after all the medical formalities and a cataract operation to the second eye.

In the meantime, I received a letter from Rakesh some time I think in June informing me that you are back from abroad and I could come and discuss.

I am writing this to inform you that atleast for a fortnight or so I am not allowed to move about too much. I would however come later.

Would you kindly see that rent for the period from 1st Nov. is sent by a draft at an early date. I just cannot enquire the reason for this delay. I will however come and discuss later whatever you wish to discuss.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

Sd/

Sh. Jaswant Rai Jain,

1013, Sector 27-B."

This letter establishes one fact that the contract of lease regarding the house in question was made vide agreement of licence dated 1.11.87 and this agreement of licence has been produced by the Decree-Holder on the file of the executing court at page No. 247 and this agreement of licence dated 1.11.87 has been entered into by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh with Rakesh Kumar son of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has not produced any agreement of licence/lease etc. dated 1.11.87; instead he has produced a lease agreement dated 3.8.1987 entered into with Brig. Gurkirpal Singh the father of the decree holder. Read with his own letter, referred to above, at page No. 147 of the record of the executing court and the agreement of licence dated 1.11.87 produced by the decree-holder which is at page No. 247 of the record of the executing court and which has been referred to in the letter dated 4.7.88 addressed to the petitioner (the letter which has been produced by the petitioner himself in the executing court) it shows that this so-called lease agreement dated 3.8.87 has been manufactured after the death of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh and after the son of the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain lost his case upto the Supreme Court. I think that no further evidence is needed to be referred to for holding that the petitioner has prepared false lease agreements after his son Rakesh Kumar lost the case from the Decree-Holder upto the Supreme Court. It is further inferred from all this tha the petitioner in order to manufacture this evidence has tried to make use of the letters written to him in confidence by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh only to ask for the rent of the house from the father of the Judgment-Debtor but still false-hood has no legs to stand. As referred to above, it has been proved from the petitioner''s own evidence, which he has placed on the file of the executing court that he has only tried to prepare the false documents by affixing the name of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on some lease agreements by which the petitioner is alleged to have been shown as a tenant. The authenticity of agreement of licence dated 1.11.87 cannot be doubted and it remains unchallenged. The reference of this lease dated 1.11.87 is rather found in the letter in possession of the petitioner himself, as discussed above. Even the signatures on the agreement for licence dated 1.11.87 produced by the decree-holder and the signatures on the alleged lease deed dated 3.8.87 differ a lot. It shows that the petitioner has tried to manufacture the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on the document dated 3.8.87 and this agreement alongwith the other documents which he has produced on the file of the executing court saw the light of the day only after the petitioner''s son lost his case upto the Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note here that the objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the executing court on 23.8.96 and on 24.8.96 Rakesh Kumar Jain, Judgment Debtor filed an application in the court of Shri Tejwinder Singh, Sub Judge, First Class, Chandigarh in which he has asked for grant of one month''s time i.e. upto 30.9.96 for vacating House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh (demise premises in question). On the same day i.e. 24.8.96 he gave an undertaking before the same Judge that he will hand over the vacant possession of the demise premises within one month i.e. on or before 22.9.96.

In the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has ruled that where resistance is offered to the execution of a decree by a stranger occupying decretal premises to his own right then the right of the stranger has to be decided by executing court after giving opportunity of hearing to the stranger and the Decree Holder.

The learned executing court has held that the objector seems to have got no locus standi to file the objection petition on the ground that the objector is the father of the Judgment Debtor and he knew about the eviction proceedings going against his son. It is in those circumstances it was held by the executing court that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the objection petition. Even then it considered the rival contentions of the parties and only after appreciating the evidence on the file i.e. after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Decree Holder and the petitioner it held that the objection petition had no force and ultimately dismissed the same. While appreciating the evidence on the record he took into consideration a letter issued from the office of DIG, ITBP to Brig. Gurkirpal Singh, the father/attorney of the decree holder which showed that earlier the possession of the house in question was with ITBP. He also took into consideration another document on the file which showed that possession of the demise premises was handed over to Brig. Gurkirpal Singh by ITBP on 30.11.79.

I have gone through the letters produced by the petitioner before the executing court but I do not find any thing in these letters which could show that the premises in question had been rented out to Jaswant Rai Jain. Rather from one letter produced by the petitioner himself which is placed at page 71 of the record of '' the executing court it shows that in fact, the premises were rented to Rakesh Kumar but letter was written to his father, the petitioner only for getting the rent etc. because he was the eldest member of the family. The relevant portion of the letter at page 71 is re-produced as under :

"I would like to meet you and Rakesh on the 27th whatever time suitable to you. Would you be good enough to see that the papers are ready, so that we can sign up on the 27th. I do hope you and Rakesh would be available."

In this letter, availability of Rakesh has been emphasized by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh as the lease deed was written regarding the rent of the house from year to year.

From the reading of the letters, it is rather discerned that both the judgment debtor Rakesh Kumar Jain and his father Jaswant Rai Jain, the present petitioner were residing in the same house and they had good relations with Brig. Gurkirpal Singh, the father of the decree holder. For ready reference a letter dated 24.4.85 at page 91 produced by the petitioner on the record of the executing court written by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh is re-produced as under:

"Dear Jaswant Rai Jee,

Sat Siri Akal,

Thank you very much for the invitation to Reception to bless Rajesh and his lady wife Preeti on the 24th April, 1985. Inspite of my best efforts it would not have been possible for me to attend the reception due to late receipt of the invitation. I, however, send my greetings and good wishes to the newly wed couple and wish them a very happy and long mamed life."

These letters further show that the relations between petitioner, the father of the Judgment Debtor Rakesh Kumar Jain and his son Rakesh Kumar Jain were cordial throughout and they were residing in the same house and the marnage of his son was also performed when they were living in the same house.

While filing the objection petition at such a late stage, the petitioner has mentioned that he came to know of the ejectment proceedings only very recently. He did not mention the date, month or the year when he came to know about the ejectment proceedings. In para No. 6 of the reply on merits filed by the respondent-decree-holder, it has been mentioned that Jaswant Rai Jain petitioner-objector the father of the decree-holder remained associated throughout with the ejectment proceeding; The relevant portion of the reply reads as under :

"On merits, of the above said objection petition Under Order 21 Rule 35 read with Rule 101 read with u/s 47 read with u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended, dated 15.4.1996, since the litigation in between the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor, qua his eviction as a tenant under the Decree Holder in respect of his demised tenanted premises describable as House No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, with which Shri Jaswant Rai Jain, Objector, his father, remained associated throughout got finally culminated in the Supreme Court of India through the passing of above said Order dated 9.4.1996, therefore, the question of there being a collusion between the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor, simply does not arise, as alleged."

This, fact is not denied in the replication of the petitioner before the executing court.

Thus, it would be difficult to believe for the court and even a layman to presume that the petitioner came to know of the ejectment proceedings pending against his son Judgment Debtor only recently i.e. after his son lost the case upto the Supreme Court. From the factual position, as stated above, it is rather proved that the petitioner had the knowledge of the eviction proceedings going on before the Rent Controller and then to the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Again the allegation of the petitioner that there was a collusion between the Judgment Debtor i.e. Rakesh Kumar Jain, the son of the petitioner and the decree holder is without any basis.

The collusion between the Judgment-Debtor i.e. the son of the petitioner and the decree-holder has been specifically denied in the reply filed by respondent-decree holder. The relevant portion of the reply in para No. 6 is re-produced as under:

"In the abovesaid background the allegations that the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor both have colluded together to obtain the order of ejectment in a surreptitiously manner at the back of the petitioner with a view to jeopardise the right of the petitioner and hence, the present objection petition on behalf of the petitioner and that he has come to know of the order of ejectment recently and hence, this application is being filed for determination of the status of the petitioner as a tenant and to protect his possession in respect of the house in question, being totally false and baseless, are vehemently denied."

There is not even an iota of evidence which could prove the allegation of the petitioner that there was any collusion between the Judgment Debtor Rakesh Kumar, the son of the petitioner and the Decree Holder for getting the premises in question vacated. Judgment-Debtor Rakesh Kumar, son of the petitioner did not leave any stone unturned to defeat the petition of the decree holder for ejectment. The Judgment-Debtor Rakesh Kumar the son of the petitioner fought the battle upto the Supreme Court and finally lost. It is only thereafter that the petitioner i.e. the father of the Judgment-Debtor started the proceedings i.e. filing of objection petition etc. before the executing court against the execution of the decree against judgment-Debtor, his son. Rather the evidence on the record, as discussed above, shows that there is a collusion between the Judgment-Debtor and the petitioner i.e. the father and son for not leaving the premises of the decree-holder though he had won upto the Supreme Court and this objection petition is only an offshoot of the collusion between the father and the son in order to linger on the delivery of possession of the premises to the decree-holder despite the final verdict of the Supreme Court in his favour. The law laid down by the authorities of the Supreme Court does not favour the petitioner. Though it is established on the record that he had the knowledge of the ejectment proceedings going on between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor Rakesh Kumar Jain but still he was allowed to produce whatever evidence he had in his armoury to defeat the valid claim of the decree holder. Learned executing court appreciated the evidence of both the parties and then reached at a conclusion that the petitioner-objection had no case in his favour and rejected his objection petition. Even at the time of hearing of this Revision Petition, I have gone through and appreciated the evidence produced by both the parties before the executing court. From the evidence on the record, I find that the petitioner had, infact, the knowledge of the proceedings going on between the decree holder and the judgment debtor Rakesh Kumar Jain and the documents filed by the petitioner do not seem to be genuine. As discussed above, even from the naked eyes it seems that the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on the alleged lease-deeds produced by the petitioner have been fabricated. It is unfortunate that Brig. Gurkirpal Singh is no more as he has died before objection petition was filed by the petitioner before the executing court and the petitioner has tried to make use of his absence in order to manufacture the alleged lease deeds and to delay the delivery of possession of the demised premises to the decree holder who has won his case upto the Supreme Court.

In the light of discussion made above, I find that the objection petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous and, thus, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. It is, thus, dismissed with costs. The Rent Controller is directed to proceed with the eviction of the landlord and dispose of the same in accordance with law forthwith.

It may be mentioned in the last that the decree holder shall be at liberty to take any action permissible under the law against the petitioner, if so advised. The record of the-executing court be sent back forthwith.