Jagbir Kaur Ahuja v. Nand Lal & Ors

17 WITH + CM(M)1384/2019 and CM APPL.41849/2019 UMA WATI(SINCE DECEASED)THRLR Petitioners Thi'ough: Mr.Prashant Singh,Advocate, versus Mr.Arun Kumar,Advocate for R-1. 18 AND + CM(M)1385/2019 and CM APPL.41854/2019 SURESH MITTAL Petitioner Through: Mr.Prashant Singh,Advocate, versus 19 AND + CM(M)1386/2019 and CM APPL.41856/2019 VINOD KUMAR HARI RAM Petitioner Through: Mr.Prashant Singh,Advocate, versus NAND LAL & ORS Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M.SINGH CM(M)1383/2019, 1384/2019, 1385/2019& 1386/2019 Page 1 of[5] 2020:DHC:3871 ORDER r' % 03.02.2020

1. The Petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging the impugned order dated 4"" September, 2019, wherein, while adjourning the matter,the Id. Rent Control Tribunal(hereinafter, "RCT")has clarified that there is no stay ofexecution.

2. The grievance in these petitions is that an interim order had been granted by the RCT on 9''" August,2019 and the same could not have been vacated without any reason whatsoever. The Sr. counsel who had to reach the Court was on his way from the Airport and hence, by the time he could reach,the matter got over and the stay granted on 9'*^ August,2019 had been vacated.

3. Vide order dated IS^*" September, 2019, notice was issued and Id. counsel for Respondent No.l was directed to be served. The said order reads:

stay ofexecution. Mr. S.K. Rungta, Id. Senior counsel submits'that on theprevious date i.e. 9th August, 2019, a stay order was granted in the following terms by the same Court:- "Arguments on stay application heard further but could not be concluded due to paucity of time on accountofadministrative exigencies. The appellants are allegedly sub tenants and were not party to the original eviction proceedings, though, the same is not mandatorily required and there was multiple litigation between the present respondents and theirpredecessors in interest, the dispute running from 1940s.Before the execution court, the appellants could not adduce evidence oftitle ofMuni Lai Mehra i CM(M)1383/2019, 1384/2019, 1385/2019& 1386/2019 Page2of[5] which led to the impugned order. In view ofcircumstances ofthis case, which callfor detailed hearing, learned counselfor respondent nos. 1 & 3 were requested and they consented that till next date they shall notget executed the eviction order out ofwhich the impugned order arose,so that the appeal be heardatlength. Trial court record and execution court record be summonedtwo days before the nextdate ofhearing. Listfor arguments on 04.09.2019as alreadyfxed. It is clarified thaton nextdate no adjournmentrequest shall be entertained."

3. The matter was adjourned for hearing on 4th September,2019.Itissubmitted thatMr.S.K. Rungta,Id. Senior counsel hadgone out ofthe country aspart ofan internationaldelegation and infactreached back. Only a Passover was sought in the morning, which was refused by the Ld. District Judge. The application under Order XXIIRule 4 CPC was decided and at the end ofthe said order it was clarifiedthatthere is nostay ofexecution..4. It is submitted by Mr. S.K. Rungta that the entire appeal would be infructuous if the Executing Court appoints a Bailiffand warrants ofpossession are issued, inasmuch as, the appeal deserves to be heard on merits and the interim order which was passed on 9th August, 2019 could not have been vacated in this manner.

5. The Court has perused the order dated 9th August, 2019 and the impugned order dated 4th September, 2019.In theformer, the Ld.DistrictJudge records thata ^detailed hearing' would be required. However, in a cryptic manner, in the latter order, at the end the execution is allowed to proceed, by observing "Copy of this order be sent to the trialcourtclarijying that there is no stay of execution." There are no circumstances recorded as to why the said clarification was given that there is no stay ofexecution, by the Id. DistrictJudge.In fact, this latter order,primarily deals with an application CM(M)1383/2019, 1384/2019, 1385/2019& 1386/2019 Page3of[5] / M under Order XXII CPCfor substitution oflegal heirs. This clarification is not just a clarification but tantamounts to vacating the earlier granted order, without any reasons. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the Executing Court hasfixed 24th September, 2019 as the next date in the execution proceedings and for appointmentofBailiff.

6. Under these circumstances, let notice be issued dasti to the Id. counsels appearingfor the Respondents before the Id. DistrictJudgefor appearance on 19th September,

2019. Let a copy of the order be served upon the Id. counsels appearing in thesaidappeal.

7. Liston 19'^September,2019 at[2]:15p.m.

8. Order dasti undersignatures ofthe CourtMaster."

4. However, Respondent No.l did not appear and on 19'^ September, 2019,this Court has passed the following order:- "1.Further to yesterday's order, it issubmittedon behalf ofthePetitioner thatthe dasti notice wasserved upon the counselfor Respondent No.l, who accepted the service. However, Id. counselfor Respondent No.3 refused to acceptthe intimation ofthe order. The backgroundofthe impugned order, out ofwhich the presentpetitions arise has been captured in the order passed by this Court yesterday i.e. on 18'^September,2019.

2. A perusal ofthe order dated 9'^ August, 2019, and subsequent order of4'^ September, 2019 shows that the stay ofexecution, which was directed by the order dated 9'^ August, 2019 has been vacated by means of the impugned order which termed the same as a 'clarification'. The order dated 9'^ August, 2019 clearly records thatthe appealpending before the DistrictJudge required a detailed hearing, and under these circumstances, Id. counsel appearing for the Respondents had been directed not to proceed with the execution. The impugned order, which seeks to clarify that there is no stay ofexecution, is without any reasons CM(M)1383/2019,1384/2019,1385/2019& 1386/2019 ^"8^ V. // and the appeal, is in any case, stillpending and has not been disposed of.

3. Despite intimation being given to Id. counsels appearing for the contesting Respondents before the Trial Court, none have appeared today on behalfofthe Respondents. Under these circumstances, it is directed that there shall be stay ofexecution until disposal ofthe' appeals in RCT Nos.95/2019, 80/2019, 81/2019 and 78/2019 by theId. DistrictJudge.