In this case SC held that After hearing learned counsel, it is not possible to comprehend the contents of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The order passed by the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
Here are a few Paragraphs of the impugned judgment:
1. The Judgment debtor/petitioner herein, tenant in the demised premises stands aggrieved by the pronouncement made by the learned Executing Court upon his objections constituted there before vis-a-vis the execution petition constituted thereat by the Decree holder/landlord, where within the apposite unfoldments qua his resistance to the execution of the decree stood discountenanced by the learned Executing Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor/petitioner herein submits qua the impugned pronouncement made by the learned Executing Court upon the apposite objections preferred there before by the JD/tenant manifesting therein qua the decree put to execution there before not warranting recording of afrmative orders thereon, its standing fully satisfed, standing stained with a vice arising from the factum of its palpably slighting the factum of unfoldments occurring in the relevant record existing there before comprised in the testifcation recorded on 29.10.2004 in Rent Petition No. 10/2 of 2003 by the General Power of Attorney of the landlord wherein he made articulations qua all the outstanding arrears of rent qua the demised premises standing liquidated by the judgment debtor excepting conspicuously the one’s pertaining to the period commencing from 1.9.2000 uptill 31.03.2003 whereupon he hence canvassed qua the executable pronouncement recorded in rent petition No. 1-2 of 1996 put to execution before the learned Executing Court embodying therein qua the Judgment debtor, falling into arrears of rent commencing from 1.9.1995 upto the date of payment standing fully satisfed, satisfaction whereof emanating from the factum of liability of rent fastened upon the tenant in a verdict recorded in Rent Petition No. 1-2 of 1996, standing acquiesced to stand liquidated more so when the aforesaid verdict stood put to execution. However, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant/JD/petitioner herein cannot derive the fullest succour from the aforesaid acquiescence occurring in the testifcation of the GPA of the decree holder/landlord, given its sinew sufering partial dissipation from an imminent display occurring in the impugned pronouncement hereat where within unravelments are held qua the rendition recorded by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No.1-2/1996 standing assailed before the learned Appellate Authority by the tenant/JD by the latter preferring an appeal there before whereat he under an application constituted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act sought extension of time for depositing his statutory liability qua the arrears of rent determined by the learned Rent Controller in a pronouncement made by the latter on 6.11.1999, where from an inference spurs of the JD acquiescing qua his not making the relevant deposit qua his liability towards arrears of rent within the statutorily prescribed period, application whereof sufered the ill fate of its dismissal by the learned Appellate Authority under the latter’s order recorded on 16.12.2000. Of course, the inevitable ensuing sequel therefrom is qua the tenant/JD acquiescing to the factum of his not depositing the relevant computations of arrears of rent made by the learned Rent Controller concerned in Rent Petition No.1-2 of 1996 within the statutorily prescribed period for its deposit there before whereupon the apposite decree for his sufering eviction from the demised premises on account of his falling into arrears of rent became executable qua him, whereupon, he stands estopped besides forestalled to derive the fullest strength from any acquiescence made by the GPA of the decree holder/landlords, rather stands entailed with the misfortune of the learned Executing Court ensuring his eviction from the demised premises by ordering for issuance of warrants of possession qua him.
Download Full Text of High Court Judgment in the case of Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. Sarla Sood and others (Himachal Pradesh High Court); C.R. No. 184 of 2011, Decided on: 5th December, 2016.