Pritam Kaur & Ors. v. Anil Kumar & Ors.

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 against ex parte. to 6 proceeded Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.05.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, HP in CMA No.306 of 2016, whereby the objections filed by the present petitioners to the execution have been dismissed and a warrant of possession has been issued qua the demised premises.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

Eviction petition, in the case at hand filed against the present petitioners, bearing No.2/2011, was decided by the learned Rent Controller, Chamba on 27.11.2015. The arrears of rent, as determined vide judgment dated 27.11.2015, were to be paid along with interest and costs, within a period of 30 days 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 from the date of passing of the order and failure to do so, would automatically result in enforcement of eviction order by the landlord. The Court has no power to extend the period. No appeal was preferred against the judgment dated 27.11.2015. Therefore, the said judgment became final against the present petitioners.

In the aforesaid backdrop, an execution petition was preferred by the present respondents, to which objections were filed by the present petitioners and the same have been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 23.05.2022.

It is an admitted fact that arrears of rent as required under law have not been deposited by the petitioners within thirty days from the passing of the impugned judgment by the trial Court i.e. 27.11.2015.

The rent petition, in the case at hand, was filed on

28.03.2011. The present judgment debtors i.e. respondents therein, despite service did not put in appearance, hence the case was decided ex parte.

Previously qua the suit premises, the predecessor-in- interests of the respondents/decree holders had filed a suit for possession bearing Civil Suit No.123/2003. The same was decided on 25.02.2008. In the plaint so filed, the present petitioners were the defendants. The defendants therein had taken a plea that one Pritpal Singh son of Sh. Karam Singh, is a necessary party in the suit, as it is he who is in possession of 3 the demised shop. The suit so filed was decreed vide judgment dated 25.02.2008. In appeal, the judgment was set aside on the ground that eviction of a tenant in urban area can only be made in accordance with the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The reasons for making a reference to the Civil Suit No.123/2003 is to demonstrate the stand being taken therein by the present petitioners/JDs qua the premises in the case at hand. In the objections now filed, they claim themselves to have become the owners of the suit property, by way of adverse possession, since March 2003.

Taking into account the fact that arrears of rent as determined in the judgment passed by the Rent Controller dated 27.11.2015 is concerned, the same has not been deposited within the time fixed i.e. 30 days. The fact that the present petitioners after having served in the rent petition bearing No.2/2011, decided on 27.11.2015, did not participate in the proceedings and hence were proceeded against ex parte. The same has not been assailed by way of an appeal. It is well settled that for filing an appeal against eviction order on the grounds of arrears of rent, the condition precedent is deposit of the arrears, as has been laid in Satish Kumar and anr. Vs. Jagat Ram, 2020 (1) Shim. LC 173. The relevant extract is being reproduced herein below:- “

… … … In other words the payment of rent due within the stipulated period of 30 days is a condition precedent and sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the Appellate Authority or else the order of 4 Rent Controller has to be treated to have attained finality and the appeal must be dismissed.

Besides the aforesaid, the shifting stand of the petitioners, wherein initially they claim to have nothing to do with the suit property, when a suit is filed by the predecessor- in-interest of the respondent/decree holder on 18.09.2003 i.e. Civil Suit No.123/2003, decided on 25.02.2008, whereinafter when it comes to the execution of the judgment dated

27.11.2015, the objection filed is that they have become owners by way of adverse possession. The shifting stand of the present petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process.