1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:16.02.2026 SARANJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER Versus ROMESH CHANDER MAHAJAN ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by impugned order dated

15.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) vide which application for staying the execution proceedings during pendency of application filed by petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025 was allowed subject to deposit of entire arrears of rent amounting to Rs.22,72,229/- on or before

30.01.2026 by way of demand draft in the Court.

2. Petitioner-tenant was duly served in the eviction proceedings, was being represented through counsel, however counsel for petitioner pleaded ‘no instructions’ and ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) was passed against petitioner-tenant. Thereafter, warrants of possession were issued.

3. It is worth noticing that petitioner-tenant had duly appeared in rent petition and thereafter in presence of his counsel, Court has assessed provisional rent to be Rs.19,04,814/-. Petitioner-tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent and defence of petitioner-tenant was struck off. Respondent-

landlord was not cross-examined despite due opportunities. When the counsel for petitioner-tenant had pleaded ‘no instructions’, the matter was adjourned to 11.09.2025 for awaiting for presence of petitioner-tenant, however none was present on said date and accordingly ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-1).

4. Petitioner-tenant was found to be in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.27,72,229/-. No rent was ever paid by petitioner-tenant though rent was assessed by the Court despite due representation of petitioner-tenant. Despite all these facts, the Court had agreed to stay the proceedings before Executing Court on payment of rent, however, without depositing the rent, petitioner-

tenant had come before this Court in present revision petition.

5. The sole argument raised on behalf of petitioner-tenant is that while his application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC is pending, the Executing Court cannot be allowed to proceed further as allowing Executing Court to proceed would make his application infructuous.

6. Petitioner-tenant has also made an alternative prayer that he be allowed six months time period to vacate the premises. Petitioner-tenant is seeking equity. A person seeking equity must come with clean hands and must show that he is entitled to equity. A person who has committed default cannot seek equity from the Court.

7. In present case, from the conduct of petitioner-tenant, it is clearly made out that only purpose for filing revision petition as well as application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC is to delay the proceedings for one reason or the other. This sort of conduct cannot be allowed by the Courts. There is no vested right with a party to seek stay of execution proceedings execution proceedings can continue in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It all depends on the facts of each case.

8. In present case, the intention of petitioner-tenant, as made out from his conduct, is not to pay the rent and continue in possession of tenanted premises without any justification.

9. This Court has also asked as to whether petitioner is ready to deposit the rent, however, learned counsel for petitioner-tenant, on instructions, clearly states that petitioner-tenant is not able to deposit the rent and landlord can take remedies as available in law.

10. In such situation, where the intention is only to take benefit of law without discharging corresponding duties, no equitable order can be passed. No case for interference with impugned order is made out.

11. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(PARMOD GOYAL)

JUDGE

16.0