IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25.08.2025 (cid:1)

Manjot Singh ... Petitioner Versus(cid:1)

Pawan Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Malik, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Chhoker, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

(cid:1)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed in EXE-495-2024 titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumar Sharma whereby the objections filed by the petitioner, being third party, have been dismissed without taking into account the provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 & 101 CPC.

2. In brief, the facts, as culled out from the petition, are that contesting respondents had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short Rent Act) for ejection of the respondent from shop i.e. part of House No.162- 2 & 162-2/B known as H.N. Collection, opposite Chiranjee Ashram, Darijan Wali Gali, Patiala and to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises as described in the site plan. In the said petition, while deciding the application for determination of arrears of rent, the learned Rent Controller assessed the interim rent under Section 25 read with Section 8 of the Rent Act at Rs.2,12,482/- towards arrears and charges upto 30.04.2024, directing the pro forma respondent-tenant to pay the same by 01.07.2024 and further directed him to continue paying rent @

Rs.8,840/- per month during the pendency of the eviction petition without fail. On the very same day i.e. 01.07.2024, during the course of proceedings, learned counsel for the pro forma respondent suffered a statement to the effect that as per the information received from his client, the pro forma respondent has already vacated the premises in dispute on that very day and handed over the possession to one Manjot Singh son of Harjit Singh i.e. petitioner herein, resident of House No.36-G, Bharpur Garden, Patiala, who is the nephew of the original owner of the shop in question, which was made part of zimni order dated 01.07.2024. On 03.07.2024, the ejectment petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and directed eviction of the pro forma respondent from the tenanted premises. Since no appeal was filed by the pro forma respondent, respondents No.1 and 2-decree holders filed execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) seeking warrant of possession and recovery of arrears of rent as land revenue as well as by way of arrest. Objections were filed by the pro forma respondent to the said petition taking up the plea of non-existence of landlord-tenant relationship as he had already handed over possession of the tenant premises to the petitioner-Manjot Singh. Reply to said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide order dated 29.11.2024, the Executing Court has dismissed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed objections being third party on the ground that he is lawful owner in possession of the demised premises as in family settlement, demised premises came to his share and further the decree is not executable against him as he was neither a party to the original suit nor a judgment debtor. Reply to the said objections was filed by contesting respondents No.1 and 2 and vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the same.

Hence, the revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Executing Court has dismissed the third party objections of the petitioner raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adhering to the procedure as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC whereby all questions pertaining to the right, title and interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an appli