Kamaldeep Kaur and Another vs Teja Singh and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Objectors Kamaldeep Kaur and her brother Harmandeep Singh have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executing Court, thereby dismissing objections preferred by the petitioners as well as the objections preferred by their mother Satwinder Kaur -proforma respondent no. 2 - judgment-debtor (JD). Respondent no. 1 Teja Singh - decree-holder (DH) filed ejectment petition against respondent no. 2 - JD under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking ejectment of respondent no. 2 as tenant from the demised property. The said ejectment petition was allowed by learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 23.01.2008 (Annexure P-6), which was upheld by Appellate Authority in appeal vide judgment dated 20.02.2010 and by this Court in revision petition vide order dated 19.04.2010. Consequently, respondent no. 1 - DH filed execution proceedings for execution of the said order.

In the execution petition, petitioners and their mother - JD filed separate objection petitions alleging that petitioners have half share in the demised property, and therefore, the ejectment order cannot be executed against them. The objection petitions were resisted by the DH by filing replies controverting the averments of the objectors.

Learned Executing Court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), dismissed the objection petitions. Feeling aggrieved, objectors have filed this revision petition assailing the said order.

I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file, whereas none has appeared for contesting respondent no. 1 - DH.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that Gurcharan Singh and his wife Gurdev Kaur had purchased the disputed property vide sale deed dated 13.07.1999 (Annexure P-2). On the death of Gurdev Kaur, her half share was inherited by her four daughters and four sons including petitioners'' father Parminder Singh. On the death of Parminder Singh, his share was inherited by petitioners, and therefore, petitioners are owners of half share of the disputed property and the ejectment order cannot be executed against them being not party thereto.

The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in the aforesaid manner. Half share of Gurdev Kaur was inherited by her husband and eight issues i.e. 1/9th share each. Thus, petitioners'' father inherited 1/9th share of half share of Gurdev Kaur i.e. 1/18th share in the disputed property. Out of said 1/18th share of Parminder Singh, the petitioners inherited only 2/3rd share i.e. 1/27th share only.

However, in the execution proceedings, the Executing Court is not concerned with the ownership or title of the tenancy premises. Respondent no. 2 - JD, who is none else but mother of the petitioners, inherited half share of Gurcharan Singh in the disputed property, in view of his Will, besides inheriting 1/54th share in the disputed property from her husband Parminder Singh. She sold her entire share in the disputed property to respondent no. 1 - DH vide sale deed dated 24.09.2003 (Annexure P-4) and delivered possession of the entire property to vendee -respondent no. 1. Thereafter, respondent no. 2, vide subsequent rent note dated 03.10.2003 (Annexure P-5), took the entire demised property on rent from respondent no. 1 and took possession thereof from respondent no. 1. It was on the basis of this relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 that the ejectment petition filed by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2 was allowed by Rent Controller and upheld in appeal and revision petition. In view thereof, respondent no. 1 is entitled to execute the ejectment order against respondent no. 2, who was in exclusive possession of the demised property. The petitioners may be having a share in the disputed property. However, there is nothing on record to even remotely depict that they were ever in possession thereof either exclusive or jointly or any part thereof. On the contrary, petitioner no. 2 is still minor and petitioner no. 1 was also minor (as admitted by counsel for the petitioners), when the property was let out by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were ever in the possession of the disputed property, although they may be having share therein. However, ownership of the disputed property is not in issue and is not relevant. On the other hand, apparently, objections on behalf of the petitioners have been filed at the instance of their mother - respondent no. 2-JD, who, having lost in the ejectment case up to this Court, sought to thwart the execution of ejectment order by herself also filing the similar objections and by getting the objections to the same effect filed by her son and daughter. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Executing Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.