ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully stayed that the present petition for writ may kindly be allowed and an order impugned dated 16.01.2021 (Annexure-6) passed the learned execution court in execution case No.42/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. The facts of the case are that a godown measuring 20X40 sq. ft., situated at 160, Gol Bazar (Tractor Market), Sriganganagar, owned by one Satinder Singh was let out to Shri. Jagdish Rai, who was the father of the petitioner and the rent was fixed @ Rs. 150/- per month. In the year 2008, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Sections 6 , 7 and 9 of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') on the ground of bonafide need stating that on 22.03.2005, the rented permises was purchased by them from Satinder Singh and each of them is having 1/3 share in the rented premises. After service upon the petitioner, the petitioner filed reply to the application denying the facts mentioned in the application.

3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') allowed the application vide order dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1) while directing as under:-

^^¼1½ vthZnkjx.k izR;FkhZx.k ls vthZ ds en la[;k 3 esa of.kZr fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlk] 160 xksy cktkj ¼V~SDVj ekfdZV½ Jhxaxkuxj] tks rhu eaftyk cuh gqbZ gS] Hkwfery o izFkery ds chp esa ,d fe;keh cuh gqbZ gS] Hkwfery ds mRrjh fgLls ls ,d dejk cuk gqvk gS tks mRrjeq[kh gS] dks NksMdj 'ks"k Hkwfery o blds mij cuh gqbZ lEiw.kZ fe;kuh dks NksMdj lkbZt 20 xq.kk 40 QqV gS] dk [kkyh dCtk jktLFkku fdj;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 15¼8½ ds ijUrqd ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj vkns'k dh fnukad ls N% ekg i'pkr izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA

¼2½ izR;FkhZx.k }kjk fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj [kkyh dj vkns'k dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekg esa dCtk vthZnkjx.k dks laHkyk;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vthZnkjx.k vthZ izLrqfr fnukad ls dCtk laHkyk;s tkus rfd fdjk;k crkSj gtkZ bLrsekyh izR;FkhZ ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA

¼3½ ;fn izR;FkhZx.k dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ds izek.k i= tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekl ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj ifjlj [kkyh ugha djrs gS] rks vthZnkjx.k dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ds izek.k&i= ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls rhu xqus dh nj ls fu"dklu ifjlj rd fdjk;k crkSj gtkZ bLrsekyh vfrfjDr U;k; 'kqYd fu;ekuqlkj vnk dj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA rnuqlkj dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ,oa olwyh izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k tkosA**

4. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'), which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 (Annex.2).

5. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 (Annex.2), the petitioner preferred SBCWP No.3495/2019 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 23.01.2020, disposed of the writ petition while granting some time for vacating the premises in dispute and also directed the petitioner to pay mesne profit @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, w.e.f. February, 2020 till the date of vacation of the premises in dispute.

6. The petitioner, in terms of the said judgment, had already paid arrears of rent prior to February, 2020 @ Rs. 1500/- per month and since February, 2020, the petitioner deposited Rs. 4,000/- per month in the bank account as provided by the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

7. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application for execution of the order dated 20.07.2016 (Annex.1) before the learned Tribunal to which the petitioner filed reply.