IMPORTANT POINT
Courts of law should be careful enough to see through diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. This type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and contankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.

Headnote:Rent Control-Eviction decree-Execution-Attempts on part of tenants to delay execution proceedings-Landlord had obtained order of eviction in March, 2000-Tenants by virtue of orders of courts permitted to continue in possession till 30-4-2002 on tenants filing an undertaking-Failure to vacate premises by specified date-Execution proceedings-Objection filed by tenant respondent disputing correctness of boundaries of shop in question-Objection rejected-Possession delivered to landlady with help of police and by breaking open locks of shop in question-Civil revision-Whether High Court was justified in directing executing court to first consider objections raised by tenant before taking steps to issue warrant of possession-(No).
Held : This opinion of the High Court, in our considered view, is wholly erroneous for more than one reason. The objection that the learned Judge referred to in the impugned order raised by the respondent herein was in regard to the correctness of the site plan. As noted earlier this very issue was specifically raised in the original ejectment proceedings and was held against the respondents based mainly on the admission of the first respondent which we have already extracted herein above. At the cost of repetition, we must re-state that this question of identity of the property was never again raised in the appeal before the appellate authority, in the revision before the revisional authority, namely, the High Court or in the SLP before this Court. In such circumstances, we fail to understand how this very issue can be reagitated in the execution proceeding by the tenants. It is also to be noticed that the executing court has rightly observed that re-opening of this issue would amount to asking that court to go behind the decree which is impermissible in law. We must note this finding of the execution court is not even noticed by the High Court in the impugned order. The High Court also did not take into consideration the reasoning of the co-ordinate bench of the same High Court in the dismissal order made in C.R.P. No. 5175/2002 on 29.10.2002 which while rejecting the similar contention of the respondents had specifically observed the attempt of the tenants was with a view to delay their ejectment. In such a factual background, we think the impugned judgment is wholly erroneous having no legal or factual basis to sustain it. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

2. The merits of this appeal do not call for an elaborate judgment allowing this appeal. This case is a prime example of how a judicial process is being misused by unscrupulous litigants. We are sorry to note that inspite of the glaring facts of this case, the High Court has succumbed to an unjust plea of the respondents placed before it in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is with an attempt to curb such an abuse of the process of court by unscrupulous litigants, we intend recording the facts of this case somewhat elaborately even though, as stated above, otherwise it may not be necessary to do so.

3. The appellant herein is the owner of a shop let out to the respondents herein. She filed an ejectment application for eviction of the respondents from Shop No.3 situated in Property No. EK 172/2 of Chowk Panjeer, Jalandhar before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar on 14.2.1997. About three years later on 15.5.2000, the said Rent Controller allowed the said application for ejectment and directed the respondents-tenants to hand over the possession of shop within three months. It is to be noted herein in the said eviction petition one of the specific issues raised pertained to the correctness of the site plan attached to the ejectment petition. The onus of proving this issue was on the respondents-tenants, but it is seen from the records that they did not address any argument in regard to the same, accordingly the trial court decided the said issue against the respondents.

4. Against the said judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, the respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar who dismissed the said appeal affirming the order of the Rent Controller by his order dated 7.2.2001. The aggrieved tenants then preferred a revision petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed on 8.2.2001 granting the respondents time till 31.8.2001 to vacate the suit premises.

5. The respondents then filed a civil miscellaneous application for recalling the said order of dismissal of their revision petition by the High Court which came to be partly allowed, in the sense, the time given for vacating the premises was extended till 30.4.2002 subject to the condition that the tenants will file an affidavit giving an undertaking to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the landlady on 30.4.2002. This order of the High Court in the recall petition was made on 5.3.2002. It can be noticed herein that though the landlord had obtained an order of eviction in the month of March, 2000 tenants by virtue of the orders of the courts were permitted to continue in possession till 30.4.2002.

6. Be that as it may, the tenants were not satisfied with the said extension obtained by them, they preferred a SLP before this Court and the said SLP came to be dismissed in limine by this Court as per its order dated 29.4.2002.

7. As per the terms of the affidavit filed by the respondents pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the tenants ought to have vacated the premises by 30.4.2002 which the respondents did not do compelling the appellant herein to take steps to execute the order of eviction which was done by the appellant by moving the executing court. In the said execution the respondents took the contention that the decree obtained by the appellant did not pertain to the premises sought to be taken possession of. They also disputed the correctness of the boundaries of the shop in question. The executing court rejected the said objection of the respondents against which a Civil Revision Petition No.5175/2002 was filed on 3.10.2002 by the respondents. The said revision petition came to be dismissed by the High Court by a reasoned order holding that there was no error in the order of the executing court rejecting the objections raised by the respondents. The High Court in the course of the said order also observed :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document