Disposed

Shobha Rastogi & Anr. v. Lalita Rani Singla

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2013CR/7280/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the executing court to ensure the delivery of possession of the first and second floors, by breaking ground floor locks if necessary, despite a related stay order on ground floor eviction. The landlord sought to execute warrants for the upper floors.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Executing Court to ensure delivery of possession of first and second floors by breaking locks of the ground floor if need be.

Shobha Rastogi & Anr. Vs Lalita Rani Singla — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.12.21 13:19I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

C.R. No.7280 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.7280 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.12.2013

¶5

Shobha Rastogi and Anr.

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Lalita Rani Singla

....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Harmanjit Singh Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶13

This Court on 29.11.2013 passed the following order:

¶14

“The landlords by filing the present revision petition are seeking a direction to the learned Executing Court for breaking open the locks of the ground floor underneath the demised premises comprising first and second floor for which the warrants of possession have been issued for non-compliance of the conditional order dated 24.6.2011 passed by this Court in CR No.3960 of 2011.

¶15

It is averred that in respect of ground floor, this Court in CR 3959 of 2011 has stayed the execution of the eviction decree and the common tenant to defeat the execution of the decree qua first and second floor has with a mala fide intention put a lock on the ground floor, thus, denying access to the first and second floor. This, it has been suggested, has been done to take benefit of the stay order dated 24.6.2011 passed in CR 3959 of 2011 whereby the eviction qua the ground floor has been stayed. It is not in dispute that both the aforesaid CR No.3959 and 3960 of 2011 filed by the common tenant are listed before this Court on 3.12.2013. Adjourned to 3.12.2013.”

¶16

On one of the subsequent dates i.e 10.12.2013, learned counsel

¶17

for the tenant-respondent, on instructions from his client had submitted that

¶18

C.R. No.7280 of 2013 (O&M) #2#

¶19

his client would hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the first and second floor of the demised premises.

¶20

At the time of hearing today, both the parties are making rival claims regarding taking over of the possessions.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present revision by directing the learned Executing Court to ensure the due execution of the warrants of possession qua the first and second floor of the demised premises, if need be, by breaking open the locks of the ground floor.

¶22

Disposed of with the aforesaid terms.

¶23

December 19, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Shobha Rastogi & Anr. v. Lalita Rani Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Rastogi & Anr. v. Lalita Rani Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs Raj Kumar Chauhan

Jagan Nath Vs Bachan Ram & Anr.

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Bittu Singh and Others

Anil Devi Vs Nasib Singh

Sapna Vs Sandeep

Usha Rani Alias Madavi Vs Sandeep Kumar