Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1388 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. Manoj Kumar

2016-05-13

AJAY TEWARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : AJAY TEWARI, J. This order shall dispose of aforesaid two revision petitions by this common order since the issues involved are same. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from CR-684-2016. These petitions have been filed against the orders of the Executing Court allowing the disbursal of the mesne profits to respondent No.1-Manoj Kumar. The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 had filed the eviction petition against the respondents No.2 and 3-tenants. During the pendency of that eviction petition the petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as a party. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a co-owner of the property and infact a previously instituted civil suit is pending between him and the respondent No. 1 seeking a declaration to this effect. His application for being impleaded as a party was declined. On the other hand the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 against the respondents No.2 and 3 was allowed in appeal and in further proceedings before this Court mesne profits were ordered to be paid. In the circumstances, as per him, the mesne profits which have been ordered can not be handed over to respondent No.1 and should be kept in a fixed deposit in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported as AIR 2010 SC 722 and by this Court in Angoori Devi and others Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama, 2016 (2) Law Herald (P&H), 1200. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that the judgments cited above were both in the context of the competing claims of tenants and landlord and can not be applied to the competing claims of persons who claimed to be owners, moreso, when the tenants have not moved any such plea. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-tenant points out that this fact is not entirely correct because even in the reply to the application filed by the respondent No.1 for disbursal of the money the tenant has taken the plea that the money can not be released and that issue is still pending before the Executing Court. In my opinion that controversy need not to be gone into and will be decided by the Executing Court. In my opinion that controversy need not to be gone into and will be decided by the Executing Court. Coming to the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1, I find more weight in the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1. The observations made in The State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra) and Angoori Devi and others Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama (supra) were in the context of the right of the parties to the eviction petition i.e. the landlord and the tenant. In these cases what was held was that during the pendency of the appeal the tenant can be put to terms and be asked to pay reasonable compensation for continuing in possession of the property and it was also held that the amount so paid (over and above the contractual rent) would have to be put in a fixed deposit to enure to the benefit of the party successful in the litigation. As regards the claim of the competing owners, I find that in the present case the Executing Court has already taken care of that facet by directing the respondent No.1 to furnish an indemnity bond. In the circumstances, I find no merit in both the revisions and the same are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.