Randhir Singh vs Mini Bansal and Others

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J

The pressent revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution off India praying for setting asside of the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 (Annnexure P-6) passed in EXE-618-2024 titled as Mini Bansal and another Vs. Randhir Singh and others wheereby the objections filed by the petitioner-judgmment debtor to the execution proceedings have been dismissed and the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annnexure P-7) whereby the learrned Executing Couurt has directed the concerneed bailiff to execute warrantss of possession by breaking the locks/door during day time and after giving reasonable warning in the presence of respectables of the loocality.

In brief, the facts are that father of the petitioner herein and pro forma respondent nammely Pritam Singh had taken the shop on rent from Chhota Singh @ Rs.500/- per month, who later sold the shop to Radha Bansal and respondent No.1 vide sale deed dated 12.12.2001. Being the co-landlord, respondent No.1 demanded rent from Pritam Singh but he said thhat he has already deposited the rent upto the month of April, 2003 in the name of Chhota Singh in the Civil Courtt but did not pay anyy rent to respondent No.1 and Radha Bansal even after April, 2003 and fell in arreaars. On 16.01.2005, Pritam Singgh expired. Even his legal heirs did not pay any reent to respondent No.1 or Radhha Bansal. On 18.09.2018, Raadha Bansal transferrred her half share in the saaid shop to respondent No.1 and accordingly, she became exclusive owner of the shop in question and landlord qua judgment debtoors, as they inherited tenancy rigghts after the death of Pritam Singh. Further, responndent No.1-decree holder after purchasing the plot from Chhota Singh had constructed a shop in half portion of the land of her share and rest off the plot is lying vacant. Respondent No.1-decree holder claiming herself to be owwner and landlord of the shop forming part of properrty bearing No.1506/4, situated near Anardana Chowk, Opposite Fish Market, Bahera Road, Patiala along with respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 before the learned Rent Controller, Patiala on the ground of personal necesssity and non-payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition vidde order dated 07.10.2024 and directed the respondents therein to deposit the arreears of rent of shop in dispute and granted them two months time from the date of order to vacate the demised prremises and handover its possession to respondent No.1 herein. Respondents No.1 & 2-decree holders have filed the execution petitiion wherein objections were fileed by the petitioner-judgment deebtor but the same have been dismissed by the learned Executing Court and furrther directed the concerned bailiff to execute warrrants of possession by breaking the locks/door day time and after giving reasonnable warning in the presencee of respectables of the society. Hence, the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No.1 & 2-decree holders had attaached two site plans with the rent petition, each indicating diffeerent particulars about the geographical situation and location of the disputed shop. These conflicteed site plans do not depict thhe actual identity of the demised property. It is further submitted that unless and until appropriate corrections are not made regarding boundaries of the shop in question, physical possession to the decree holder cannot be given. The petitionner had filed the objections to the execution petitiion on the above-mentioned grouunds, which have been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 09.07.2025 in a tottally unlawful manner. It is also submitted that the learned Executing Court vide order dated 29.07.20225 (Annexure P-7) had wrongly held that possession of the propperty in question cannnot be given to the decree holdder without breaking the locks/ddoor and without prooviding police help. The order of eviction dated 07.10.2024 filed by the learned Rennt Controller has been challengedd by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Courrt in appeal, which is pending consideration. Thus, in the given circumstances, the learned Executing Court ought not to have dismissed the objections filedd by the petitioner to the execution proceedings and sought for setting aside off the impugned orders dated 09.07.2025 and 29.07.2025. Ratheer, it was also argueed that since the decree is not executable as discussed above, a direction be giiven to the learned Rent Controller under Section 144 CPC for placing the partties in the position, which they have occupied before the executtion. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgmment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhikkchand s/o Dhondiram Mutha (deceased) through LRs Vs. Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (deceased) throughh LRs 2024 (3) RCR (Civil) 157.

Nootice of motion to contesting resppondents No.1 & 2 only.

Mrr. Manmeet Singh Bindra, Advocate and Ms. Nandini Guupta, Advocate acceppts notice for respondents No.1 and 2 and files their vakalatnaama, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that possession of the premises in question has already been taken by the respondents No.1 & 2/decree holderrs and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable and seeks dismissal of the same as such.

Haaving heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no force in the argumentts advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.1-Mini Bansal had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which was allowed and the petitioner-judgment debtor was granted two moonths time to vacate the demised premises and hand over possession to respondents No.1-decree holder. An exeecution petition was filed wheerein objections weree filed by the petitioner-judgmennt but the same have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.07.2025 by the leearned Executing Court wherein it is categorically obbserved that there is nothing on record to show that identification of the demised premises is unclear. Moreover, this Court is of the view that Executing Courrt cannot go behind the decree/eeviction order. The ratio decidendi

relied upon by learned counsel for the petitiooner in Bhikchand s/o Dhondiram Mutha (deceassed) through LRs (supra), in the opinion of this Court, is not applicable to the facts of presence case, as Section 144 Cr.P.C. applies to a situation wheree a decree or order is varied or reversed in appeal or any other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, as has been held by thhe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bansidhar Sharma (since deceased) rep by his Legaal Representative Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others passeed in Civil Appeal No.8400 of 2019 decided on 05.111.2019.

In view the above, this Court finds no error in the impugned orders dated 09.07.20025 and 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Executing Coourt. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed.

Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of.