JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Barnala, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of warrant of possession has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondent no.l-Rajinder Singh had filed a suit for possession of the shop in question and the present petitioner was impleaded as defendant no.l and the original owner was impleaded as defendant no.2. It is submitted that the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2018 and thereafter the owner i.e., respondent no.2 had filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and in the said proceedings, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.2 lacs to respondent no.2 with respect to the arrears of rent on 11.02.2023 and accordingly, the said eviction petition was withdrawn. It is further submitted that since respondent no.2 was treating the petitioner to be a tenant, thus, the petitioner had withdrawn the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2018. It is submitted that since as per the respondent no.2, the petitioner is presently the tenant, thus, the execution petition deserves to be rejected, however, the Executing Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 had dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner and had further issued warrants of possession.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the same deserves to be upheld and the present petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons recorded hereinafter.

4. At the outset it would be relevant to mention that vide order dated 10.01.2025 fresh warrants of possession had been issued through police help returnable for 27.01.2025. It has further been stated in the said order that the Ahlmad is directed to mention on the warrants of possession with red ink about the police help and necessary intimation has to be sent to the concerned Police Station. The said order dated 10.01.2025 has not been challenged in the present petition and thus, on the said short ground alone, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. However, in addition to the above said fact, this Court has considered the facts of the case in detail.

5. It is not in dispute that respondent no.l-Rajinder Singh had filed a suit for possession of the shop in question on the basis of tenancy rights and previous possession and the said suit was suit no.429 dated 03.09.2012 and the present petitioner was defendant no.l in the said suit whereas respondent no.2, who is stated to be the owner of the property as per the case of the present petitioner, was defendant no.2 in the said suit. The said suit was filed by respondent no.l on the plea that respondent no.l had taken the shop in dispute on rent on 01.09.2001 at the rate of Rs. 1000/-per month and had been handed over the possession and a rent note had also been executed on 06.09.2001 and that the present petitioner had filed a false suit against respondent no.l for permanent injunction restraining the respondent no.l from taking forcible possession of the said shop, which was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the respondent no.l-plaintiff was the principal tenant and the present petitioner was a licensee and a licensee had no right to remain in possession once the license was revoked. It was further averred by the respondent no.l that the present petitioner had filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree which was dismissed and it was held that present petitioner was in unauthorised possession over the shop in dispute. Accordingly, vacant possession was sought. In the said suit, following issues were framed:-

"6. From the pleadi