Nirmal Singh vs Smt. Balwant Kaur and Others

G.C. Mittal, J.—By order dated 21st May, 1986, the revision of Nirmal Singh was dismissed and the Executing Court was directed to get the possession of the premises delivered to the landlady within a fortnight of the order. On 4-6-198(sic) review application was filed by Nirmal Singh and the main ground was that there was a wrong statement of fact in the order of this Court. At that time this Court was on vacation. Along with the review application there was an application for stay, which came up for hearing on 6 6-1986 and the Vacation Judge granted stay of dispossession in view of the statement of fact that the suit of Harbax Singh Sibia is still pending and is fixed for 21-7.1986.

The statement of fact contained in third paragraph of my order dated 21-5-1986, which is to the following effect was passed on the statement made in Court by Shri B. S. Guliani, Advocate, counsel for Nirmal Singh Petitioners:

... In that suit he was not granted temporary injunction staying the execution of the decree of Smt. Balwant Kaur against him and Nirmal Singh. He took up the matter in appeal and finally remained un-successful in this Court. Thereafter, his suit was dismissed on 19-7-1984 in default. Therefore, it is clear that Harbax Singh Sibia is out of picture. It deserves to be noticed that he claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession....

To straighten the facts, records were sent for. After going through the record, the found facts are that the last date of hearing in Sibia''s civil suit No. 23 dated 31-1-1984 was 19-4-1984, and the case was adjourned to 24-5-1984. Before 24-5-1984 Sibia went up in appeal before the District Court against the order of the trial Court dated 12-3-1984 by which he was declined ad-interim injunction. The file of the suit was sent to the appellate Court and on 19-7-1984 the appeal was dismissed. The counsel appearing for Nirmal Singh had stated at the bar that on that date the suit was dismissed in default and to that extent he made a factually wrong statement. However, the record of the suit shows that in spite of the dismissal of the appeal on 19-7-1984 and in spite of the record of the suit being sent to the trial Court on 31-8-1984 the case was not taken up. Probably because of that the Advocate of Nirmal Singh appearing before me was of the impression that the suit had been dismissed in default. For the misstatement of fact Nirmal Singh''s counsel is responsible and not the counse1 for landlady.

There is clear device on the face of the record of the trial Court, and the revision, which I decided, which go to show that one or the other dilatory tectics are being used by Sibia or Nirmal Singh to help the latter. In the title deeds Smt. Balwant Kaur is the owner of the house in dispute, which is in Chandigarh. Her ownership duly finds recorded in the records maintained by the Etate Office, Chandigarh, because she has not parted with its title. In 1958 she had let out the house in dispute to Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee and in the year 1977 the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee, constructed its own building and shifted there. However, Nirmal Singh continued to occupy the premises in dispute and the landlady sought ejectment of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee on the ground of sub-letting to Nirmal Singh, in which she was successful in obtaining an ex parte ejectment order. The application of Nirmal Singh for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order was dismissed by the Rent Controller and I had dismissed the revision on 21.5.1986, giving detailed reasons. On the very following day of my order Sibia got an application drafted for filing in the trial Court for fixing the date in the suit, in which no date had been fixed after 19 4 1984. That application came up before the trial Court on 24.5.1986 and ultimately the file was got traced and effort was made to proceed with the suit That is how, the suit was received after about two years and the necessity to get it revived arose because of my order dated 21.5.1986. Otherwise it would not have been got revived, God knows for how much more time. Sibia has no title to the property and has claimed it on the basis of adverse possession. There is no material, which has been produced in Court to justify claim for adverse possession. Sibia and Nirmal Singh are in collusion and under that, some receipts have been procured by Nirmal Singh from Sibia showing the payment of rent. All the aforesaid facts further strengthen my order dated 21.5.1986 in not showing indulgence to Nirmal Singh for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. A one kanal house like the one in dispute would fetch rent not less than Rs, 2,500/- whereas in 1958 it was let out at a very nominal rate and the last rate of rent was Rs. 450/- per month. The landlady has neither got rent nor possession and the tactics employed by Nirmal Singh are merely to delay his ejectment.

The mis-statement of fact in my order dated 21.5.1986 is not at the instance of Smt. Balwant Kaur but was at the instance of counsel for Nirmal Singh who was not posted with complete facts. Accordingly, no ground for review is made out and the review application is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 500/- and now the Executing Court is directed to deliver possession of the house in dispute to the landlady within a fortnight from today with a report to this Court.

Vide order dated 9.7.1986 Nirmal Singh Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the State Bank of Patiala, High Court branch, Chandigarh, in the name of the Additional Registrar of this Court, as a condition precedent for continuing the stay order. The amount was deposited The amount of the deposit be paid to Smt. Balwant Kaur. This would be in part satisfaction of her claim for mesne profits/ damages/rent of the house in dispute and she would be entitled to adjust it against the dues which may have become time barred.