JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of directions to the executing Court i.e. the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar to decide the execution petition bearing EXE No.80 of 2021, titled as M/s Sudershan Sewa Trust V/s M/s Vishnu Processors.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon an eviction petition preferred by the petitioner (Sudarshan Sewa Trust, Amritsar) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, eviction order was passed on 20.08.2014 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the respondent on 06.10.2014. Vide order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-2), the operation of the eviction order was stayed and mesne profits @ 4.5 per sq. ft. per month which came to Rs.2,13,145/- per month were fixed. A revision petition was preferred by the tenant against the said order and vide order dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure P-3), this Court modified the order dated 27.07.2015 and fixed the mesne profits @ 3.50 p. per sq. ft. per month. Since the tenants failed to comply with the said order, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2017 (Annexure P-4).

Ultimately, the appeal preferred against the eviction order was dismissed-in-default vide order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-5). A restoration application was filed against the said order, which was allowed but again, on account of non-appearance of respondent No.1, the appeal was dismissed-in-default on 15.12.2018 (Annexure P-6). He submits that yet another application for restoration has been preferred which is pending.

3. Learned counsel submits that execution petition was preferred by the petitioner in May 2021 and since then, the same is being adjourned without any valid reason. He submits that third party objections filed by an alleged subsequent purchaser are also pending and as on date, the outstanding amount of mesne profits is approximately Rs.2 crores, which the tenant is neither paying nor is the execution petition proceeding. He submits that under the circumstances, the rights and interests of the petitioner have been gravely impaired. Learned counsel submits that directions be issued to the concerned executing Court to decide the execution petition in a time bound manner. Learned counsel places reliance upon the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rahul S. Shah V/s Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, 2021(2) RCR (Civil) 854.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find that the rights and interests of the petitioner have been gravely harmed on account of the execution petition not having been decided.

5. It needs to be noticed here that eviction order was passed as far back as on 20.08.2014 and mesne profits were fixed on 27.07.2015 which was modified by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2016 but subsequently, since the order dated 03.02.2016 was not complied with by respondent No.1, the revision petition was dismissed. A perusal of the order dated 02.02.2017 (Annexure P-4), vide which the revision petition was dismissed shows that as on that date, a sum of Rs.90 lakhs was payable on account of mesne profits and even if the benefit of the interim order dated 03.02.2016 passed in CR-741-2016 was to be considered, a sum of Rs.70 lakhs was outstanding. For, the order dated 03.02.2016, which was a conditional order, was not complied with, the revision petition was dismissed for non-compliance.

6. The appeal before the first appellate Court which had been preferred against the eviction order was also dismissed-in-default on 20.09.2017. However, upon an application for restoration having been filed, the same was restored, but again, the appeal was dismissed-in-default on 15.12.2018. This shows the conduct of respondent No.1 and it is manifestly clear that there is a deliberate and successful attempt to