JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Malerkotla, vide which the objection application dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner/third party has been rejected.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.2, who is the landlord, had sought eviction of respondent no.1, who is the original tenant and vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 the order of eviction was passed. It is submitted that subsequently the execution petition was filed and in the execution proceedings, the possession was taken by the said landlord on 11.05.2017 and thereafter respondent no.2 executed a registered lease deed dated 14.06.2017 in favour of the present petitioner and thus, the petitioner became the tenant of the premises in question. It is submitted that subsequently respondent no.1 filed an application for recalling the order of warrants of possession, which was allowed and the said order was recalled on 11.05.2017 but since respondent no.2 had already taken possession, thus, he had the right to give possession to the present petitioner. It is submitted that respondent no.1 had also filed an application to restore the possession of the shop in dispute in which the present petitioner had filed objection to the effect that it is the present petitioner, who is in possession by virtue of the registered lease deed dated 14.06.2017 but the said objection has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.03.2020. It is submitted that the said order is against law and deserves to be set aside and the respondent no.1’s application for seeking restoration of possession deserves to be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the judgment dated 30.01.2017, respondent no.1 was granted two months to pay arrears of rent and prior to elapsing of said time, on 28.03.2017, respondent no.1 had deposited Rs.10,380/- in the Government Treasury. It is submitted that however in spite of above, respondent no.2 filed execution petition and the Executing Court without issuing any notice, issued warrants of possession, without verifying whether respondent no.1 had deposited the amount in compliance to the order dated 30.01.2017. It is submitted that the recalling of said order of warrants of possession was sought on 11.05.2017 and the same was recalled yet the landlord-respondent no.2 had taken possession. It is submitted that the primary reason for dismissal of the application for restoration was that there was deficiency of Rs.1485/- in the deposit made by respondent no.1 and the said amount was later deposited but since the application for restoration of possession was dismissed, respondent no.1 filed CR-6959-2017 which was allowed vide order dated 08.01.2020 and the Executing Court was directed to restore possession to the tenant within a period of one month from the date of said order. It is submitted that the said order has attained finality as no challenge was made by respondent no.2 to the same.

4. It is argued that in pursuance of the said order, restoration application was again filed in which the petitioner whose alleged lease deed is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens has filed frivolous objections. It is submitted that as per his instructions the present petitioner is a relative of respondent no.2 and a perusal of the lease deed (Annexure P-1) would show that the petitioner is shown to be the grand son of Mohd. Ismail and respondent no.2 is shown to be the son of Ismail, although purposely the word “Mohd.” was not mentioned in the same. It is argued that the factum that rights were created by respondent no.2-landlord in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings is also apparent from the fact that even the judgment dated