The executing court cannot go behind the decree under execution, and the petitioner cannot re-agitate matters already decided in the execution proceedings.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the judgment-debtor, the challenge is to the order dated 11.6.2,004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura which has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala on 18.10.2004.

2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and materially impairing the value and utility of the said shop. The petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 14.5.1994. Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the appellate authority by judgment dated 19.3.1996. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that petitioner Naresh Kumar had not been able to prove the purchase of super-structure from Ranjit Singh, the original owner and the story put forth by him that he had taken on lease only the site underneath from Ranjit Singh was not true. The appellate authority concluded that Ranjit Singh had let out the super-structure to Naresh Kumar and that Ranjit Singh could not sub-let the site taken on lease by him from the Municipal Committee. The Appellate authority held that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between Ranjit Singh and Naresh Kumar qua the super-structure and allowed the appeal and ordered Naresh Kumar to vacate the super-structure within two months from the date of the order.

3. The executing court by order dated 11.6.2004 issued warrant of possession for vacation of the super-structure by the judgment-debtor in terms of the order dated 19.3.1996, The executing court, while disposing of the application of the petitioner held in para 5 of the order as under:-

"Relationship of landlord and tenant between Ranjit Singh predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and Naresh Kumar respondent qua the super-structure was held to be existing and respondent was ordered to vacate the superstructure within the period of two months from the date of order. Ld. Appellate Authority has thus given finding that respondent will vacate the super-structure. The Executing Court cannot go beyond decree. Even in the execution application in para No. 2, it has been mentioned that respondent in spite of clear orders of the court, has not vacated the super-structure of the shop in dispute."

The aforesaid order has been affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority by order dated 18.10.2004.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no doubt, the executing court shall not go behind the decree under execution but that does not mean that it has no duly to find out the true effect of the decree. The counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Bhavan Vaja and Ors. v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Masang and Anr., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1371 to strengthen his submission and further submitted that in the present case, the executing court ought to have seen the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading upto the decree. According to the learned counsel, the land beneath the super-structure was allotted to the petitioner by the Municipal Committee, Rajpura after the same had been cancelled to Ranjit Singh because he was owner in possession of the land and the super-structure. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner on allotment of the land to him by the Municipal Committee, purchased the super-structure for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- from said Ranjit Singh and, therefore, the petitioner had become the absolute owner of the land and the super-structure.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. It needs to be noticed that the petitioner had taken these very pleas in the ejectment petition filed by the respondent and the same had been rejected by the appellate authority vide