The court upheld the order of the Executing Court based on previous decisions and the production of a site plan as evidence.

JUDGMENT

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Executing Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no new document can be taken into account by the Executing Court and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.

3. Heard.

4. It is apparent from the material on record that the ejectment petition filed by the respondents/landlords had been allowed by the Rent Controller on 22.04.2013. The appeal preferred by the petitioner there against was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 24.02.2015. The civil revision preferred there against was also dismissed by this Court on 30.04.2015. The special leave petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.01.2016.

5. The boundaries of the demised premises had been mentioned bythe decree-holders (respondents/landlords) in the petition for eviction which has been allowed and they are seeking execution thereof. If the site plan has been produced before the Executing Court in terms of description of the property set out in the rent petition, it could be relied upon by the Executing Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed.