Court No. - 30
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 62 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- Raj Kumar Kushwaha And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rama Goel Bansal Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018 Sri Atul Dayal has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the revisionist, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Atul Dayal alongwith Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
No counter affidavit has been filed. The cause shown for delay in filing the revision is sufficient. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned. Office is directed to give a regular number to the revision.
Re: Revision Certified copy of the undertaking given by Ramji Lal Sonkar filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Atul Dayal alongwith Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
Present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 16.7.2018 passed by Additional District Judge / Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 274 of 2018 (Ajay Kumar vs. Raj Kumar Kushwaha, whereby the application paper no. 3- C filed by the Ramji Sonkar under Order, 21 Rule 97, 101, 103 CPC has been rejected.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that half of the portion of bungalow no. 62, Cantt, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi is an ancestral property of the revisionist and he is residing there since birth and his grand father Munna Lal Sonkar has taken the property in the year 1940 from one Puttan and the house in question was constructed by him. Submission is that the revisionist was not a party to the SCC suit before the court below and the suit was against Ramji Lal Sonkar s/o Munna Lal Sonkar, wherein he was not a party and therefore, he has no independent right over the property and the same has to be decided by the court below under the aforesaid provisions. He has taken this Court to various documents at page 67, 86, 87 and 106 of the paper book in support of his argument.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that this application under Order 21 Rule 97, 101 and 103 CPC was filed with an admitted position that the applicant Ajay Kumar is living in the property in question since birth. She further submitted that the suit was contested by his father and he has lost up to the higher court and he is still alive, therefore, no independent right accrues in favour of the present revisionist. She further pointed out that infact, this application was moved by Ajay Kumar and he has made signatures, however, at the bottom as plaintiff (applicant) name of his father Ramji Lal Sonkar has been mentioned. She pointed out that the court below has rightly observed in the impugned order that even after submission of his affidavit before the court below on 7.4.2018 that he will vacate the premises within one month, the objections in the execution proceedings are being filed in collusion with other persons and by his own son, which is absolutely mala fide and warrants no interference.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record I find that it is the admitted position that the revisionist is the son of Ramji Lal Sonkar, who has contested the suit proceedings upto this Court and has lost. He is still alive and he has given his undertaking for vacating the premises in question. He has filed SCC Revision No. 351 of 2017 (Ramji Lal Sonkar vs. Raj Kumar Kushwaha), wherein specific ground was taken that the house is existing belongs to the Cantonment Board and no permission was taken from the Cantonment Board by Puttan Lal, who executed the sale deed in the year 1997 in favour of the plaintiff. The aforesaid revision was filed challenging the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, SC/ST act, Jhansi in Misc. Case No.
483 of 2017, whereby the objection filed by the revisionist under Section 47 CPc read with Section 151 CPC was rejected by the court below. The aforesaid revision was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2017.
In such view of the matter the revisionist herein Ajay Kumar has no independent right in the property and his father is still alive who has contested the proceedings before the court below, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein.
It is a case of abuse of process of law where an attempt is being made to somehow delay the execution proceeding and delivery of possession for which his father has given an undertaking before the court below on 7.4.2018. The attempt appears to be absolutely mala fide in nature and is clearly at the instance of his father Ramji Lal Sonkar and appearance of his name at the bottom of the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC by the revisionist herein is also indication of this fact.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has pointed out that it is the fifth attempt to somehow delay the execution proceedings and avoid handing over of the possession and to frustrate decree passed by the court below as upheld upto this Court.
In facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the expeditious execution must take place in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim 2017 (8) SCC 611 in which it has been observed that the object of the rent laws all over the State is to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant and especially those cases where the landlord seek eviction.
No other argument is pressed.
The revision is absolutely devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited before the court below within a period of ten days from today.
Office is directed to issue certified copy of this order only after regular number is given to the revision.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Lalit Shukla