1. This petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of executing Court dated 13.1.2012 in Rent Execution Petition No.29 of 2007.
2. It appears that the petitioners are original defendants in the rent suit bearing No.432 of 1992, filed by the respondents herein, the same was filed by the original landlord to get vacant possession of the premise, which is a residential house. On various grounds such suit was preferred, one of which was a tenant in arrears. Secondly, the house was in a dilapidated condition requiring maintenance and other such grounds. Eventually, the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2001 was passed. Learned Judge directed to hand over the possession of the house to the landlord.
3. A Regular Civil Appeal bearing No.83 of 2011 was preferred, which was rejected on 11.5.2007 against which legal heirs and representatives of the original defendant preferred Civil Revision Application before this Court being Revision Application No.111 of 2007. The Court after detailed discussion and on merits of the case, rejected the Revision Application by holding that the Court below though had erred in passing the decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, so far as other ground of bona fide requirement and construction of the suit premises were concerned, original plaintiff succeeded in proving them and, therefore, the decree of eviction passed by the Court below was upheld by slight modification.
4. The original plaintiffs preferred rent Execution Petition No.29 of 2007, where learned Additional Judge issued warrant under Order 21 Rule 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been challenged in the present petition, by raising various grounds.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has mainly contended that there was a cross suit also filed by the father of original defendants, which had been dismissed without considering the same on merits as attempt is made to restore the suit as also to challenge the order of the High Court passed in Civil Revision Application No.111 of 2007 before the Supreme Court. At this stage, the order passed by the Executing Court requires to be stayed. He urged the Court that they are staying for the past 65 years and, therefore, before any decree for delivery of movable property is passed, he should be protected by this Court and the warrant issued by the Court should be stayed.
6. Considering the fact that the decree is of the year 2001 and at every stage, the present petitioners who are the legal heirs and representatives of the original defendants have contested and have lost, the last such order passed in Civil Revision Application No.1110 of 2007 also makes it clear that this Court has upheld the passing of decree of possession in favour of the respondents judgment-creditors.
7. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless the jurisdictional error is pointed out or gross miscarriage of justice is brought to the notice of the Court requiring interference, no interference is necessary.
8. It can be noted that the Court has sufficiently dealt with the factual and legal aspects and issued the order of possession of warrant. No flaw could be pointed out necessitating any interference. This petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected and the same is dismissed.
(Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) sudhir Top