JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which the objections dated 03.10.2024 and 17.03.2025 filed by legal representatives of the judgment debtor/Tarlok Singh had been dismissed.

2. Legal representative (number 1) of Tarlok Singh (judgment debtor) i.e. Khushpreet Singh, who is appearing in person, has submitted that the respondent/Jatinder Pal (now deceased), who had filed the eviction petition, was not the owner of the premises in question and thus, the eviction petition filed by him was not maintainable. It is further submitted that the respondent/Jatinder Pal had concealed the material fact that he is not the owner of the property and thus, was guilty of fraud. It is argued that in view of the above-said two submissions, the judgment and decree in favour of the respondent/Jatinder Pal dated 30.08.2019, which had been upheld by the Appellate Court as well as by this Court, is inexecutable and the execution application, which is being pursued by the legal representatives of the respondent/Jatinder Pal is not maintainable and the objections filed by the present petitioner are meritorious and the rejection of the said objections vide order dated 31.05.2025 is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the execution petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. This Court has heard the legal representative of the petitioner (judgment debtor) who is appearing in person, and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 is in accordance with law and deserves to the upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/Jatinder Pal (since deceased) had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act') for the ejectment of Tarlok Singh (judgment debtor) from the shop in question, which is located on Tibri Road, Gurdaspur, within the Municipal Limits of Gurdaspur. The respondent/Tarlok Singh (since deceased) had not disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant nor had raised the plea that the said Jatinder Pal was not the owner of the premises in question, which fact is apparent from a bare reading of the judgment dated 30.08.2019 and thus, the issues which had been framed are as under: -

'1. Whether the applicant is entitled to shop for his bonafide requirement? OPA.

2. Relief.'

5. The Rent Controller, after considering the entire evidence on record, vide judgment dated 30.08.2019, was pleased to allow the said petition and granted the following relief to the respondent/Jatinder Pal (since deceased): -

'(RELIEF)

15. In the light of discussion, made herein above, the application of applicant succeeds and is hereby allowed and an order of ejectment is hereby passed against the respondent on the ground that demised premises are required for personal requirement of applicant. Respondent is directed to vacate the shop in dispute within two months from the date of decision. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned to the Record Room, Gurdaspur after due compliance. '

6. Against the said judgment, an appeal was filed. A perusal of Annexure A-4, which is the judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Court, would show that the legal representatives of Tarlok Singh who are now pursuing the present revision petition and who had raised one objection after another before the executing Court, were impleaded as his legal representatives and were thus very well aware of the said proceedings. In para 6 of the judgment, it was noticed by the Appellate Authority that Khsupreet Singh (LR No.l) wanted to address arguments in person. In para 7 of the judgment, the Appellate Authority noticed the arguments raised by the said Khushpreet Singh. No arguments denying the relationship of landlord and tenant or to the