Litigants approaching the court must disclose all vital facts and documents, and failure to do so may result in being disentitled to relief and facing exemplary costs.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed and warrants of possession were issued in favour of the respondent-decree Holder.

2. The respondent-decree Holder filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short “the Rent Act”) seeking eviction of the petitioner-judgment debtor from a shop situated in Bazar No.5, Ferozepur Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute). The shop in dispute was originally owned by one Bimla Rani and was subsequently purchased by the respondent-decree Holder along with one Kamal Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.2009. The petitioner-judgment debtor was a tenant in the shop in dispute at that time. Kamal Kumar later withdrew from the ownership of the shop in dispute leaving behind the respondent-decree holder as its sole owner. Eviction was sought on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, personal necessity and the shop in dispute being unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

3. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the grounds of personal necessity and the shop in dispute being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In appeal, the Appellate Authority held that the landlord and tenant relationship had not been proved and under the circumstances, the landlord could file a civil suit and not an eviction petition under the Rent Act. The eviction petition was, therefore, dismissed.

4. The matter came to this Court and vide judgment dated 03.12.2021 passed in CR No.825 of 2021 titled as Mulkh Raj Vs. Sukhdev Singh, this Court reversed the findings of the Appellate Court and upheld the findings of the Rent Controller. The matter reached the Hon’ble Apex Court on a Special Leave Petition (Annexure R-1) having been filed by the present petitioner-judgment debtor. The same was, however, withdrawn unconditionally on 05.05.2022 (Annexure R-2). In the meantime, an execution petition came to be filed in which an objection petition was filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor (Annexure P-2) raising an objection that during the pendency of the rent petition, the Cantonment Board Ferozepur had filed a Civil Suit for declaration against Bimla Rani, Mulkh Raj and others to the effect that the sale deed dated 13.07.2009 executed by Bimla Rani in favour of Mulkh Raj and Kamal Kumar was illegal, null and void. This suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2021 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ferozepur but the said fact was not disclosed to the High Court in the previous revision petition leading to the passing of the judgment dated 03.12.2021 vide which the High Court restored the decision of the Rent Controller. This objection petition came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the Executing Court, whereby objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed is not sustainable. Learned counsel submitted that once the respondent-decree Holder was not the owner of the shop in dispute, the eviction proceedings instituted by him would not be maintainable.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-decree Holder submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Reference was made to the provisions of the Rent Act and it was submitted that it is not essential that a landlord should necessarily be the owner of the property from which he seeks eviction. It was submitted that the petitioner-judgment debtor concealed vital facts from this Court at the time of preliminary hearing and obtained a stay order despite the fact that the Special leave petition preferred by pe