Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3713 (ALL)

Radha Raman v. Madan Mohan Sharma

2016-11-15

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionists. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.2016, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras in Execution Case No. 01 of 2016, whereby the decree of the Small Cause Court, directing eviction of the tenant-respondent No. 2 passed at the instance of the opposite party No. 1, has been directed to be implemented by the Court Amin, Hathras. A further direction has been issued that in case necessity arises, adequate Police-force may be provided for the purpose. 3. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the SCC Suit was filed by the opposite party No. 1 against the opposite party No. 2 for arrears of rent and eviction. This suit was decreed and the order affirmed up to the Apex Court. 4. When the order was put to execution, the revisionists filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC. They thereafter obtained a direction from this Court in SCC Revision No. 316 of 2016 that the execution be not proceeded with till such time the objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC was decided. 5. The objection filed by the revisionist is that property in dispute is part of a Dharamshala, which is a Trust property. The property initially belonged to one Netram, who created a Trust by means of a registered Trust-deed dated 1.1.1945. The said Netram had two sons; Ram Narain and Damodar Das. The revisionists are sons of Ram Narain while the opposite party No. 1 is the son of Damodar Das, the other son of Netram. 6. The case of the revisionists is that by means of compromise decree, passed in Original Suit No. 48 of 1983 for partition, the Management of the Dharamshala was entrusted exclusively to the father of the revisionists, who therefore became its exclusive owner. They thereafter let out the shop in question to opposite party No. 2. 7. In 2005, a suit was filed by the opposite party No. 1, seeking a declaration as Manager of the Dharamshala. It is alleged that this suit was vexatious. However, the Trial Court decreed the suit on 19.2.2010. 8. They thereafter let out the shop in question to opposite party No. 2. 7. In 2005, a suit was filed by the opposite party No. 1, seeking a declaration as Manager of the Dharamshala. It is alleged that this suit was vexatious. However, the Trial Court decreed the suit on 19.2.2010. 8. The revisionists preferred First Appeal No. 213 of 2010, wherein an interim order was granted on 27.5.2010, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature and title of the suit property, namely, the Dharamshala. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the decree for eviction against the opposite party No. 2, has been directed to be executed even though the objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC filed by them, has not been decided finally. The executing court has held that this objection is maintainable. It is also submitted that the decree cannot be executed in view of the interim order granted in the first appeal filed by the revisionists, which directed maintenance of status quo. Any execution would amount to violation of this interim order. 10. It emerges from a perusal of the record that the revisionists claim to be the actual landlords and title holder of the shop in question. On this ground, they seek to resist the eviction of opposite party No. 2. Besides, as already noticed above, their contention is that their objection under Order XXI, Rule 97, has been held to be maintainable but has not been decided finally. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 cannot be evicted till such time, the objections are decided as directed by this Court vide order dated 5.10.2016 in SCC Revision No. 316 of 2016. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist. 12. At the very out-set, it would be relevant to note that the matter arises out of proceedings under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, for eviction of a tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. 13. It is settled law that no question of title is required to be determined or is determined in such proceedings, which are between the landlord and the tenant. It is also settled law that a landlord is a person to whom rent is payable. He does not necessarily have to be the owner of the property, rented. 13. It is settled law that no question of title is required to be determined or is determined in such proceedings, which are between the landlord and the tenant. It is also settled law that a landlord is a person to whom rent is payable. He does not necessarily have to be the owner of the property, rented. Though they alleged to be the title holders of the shop in question, they were, however, not party to the proceedings. It is also true that the proceedings for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent have been decreed up to the Apex Court despite an objection being raised therein that the revisionists were the title holders. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the objection that has been raised by the revisionists under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, raises an issue of title. Since, as already noticed herein above, the execution proceedings are for executing an order passed by the Judge, Small Causes in a SCC Suit, wherein no question of title can be determined, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that the objection that has been preferred, also cannot determine the tile of the revisionists or the opposite party No. 1 in this revision. 15. It would also be relevant to note that a similar objection that the revisionists were, in fact, the owners of the shop in question, was raised in the suit but has not been accepted by any of the Courts, namely, the Trial Court, the Revisional Court, the High Court in writ petition as also the Apex Court. 16. Therefore, any interference, at this stage, would amount to interfering with the execution of an order, which has attained finality up to the Apex Court. Besides, as admitted to learned counsel for the revisionists, their objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, is being entertained and the same shall be decided on its merits. However, the same, in my considered opinion, should not bar the execution of a decree for eviction, which has attained finality, up to the Supreme Court. The only issue that may arise, is as to the person, who is entitled to be put into the possession over the shop once its occupier, the opposite party No. 2, is evicted therefrom. 17. The only issue that may arise, is as to the person, who is entitled to be put into the possession over the shop once its occupier, the opposite party No. 2, is evicted therefrom. 17. The attempt by the revisionists to stall the execution of the decree for eviction, passed against the opposite party No. 2, in view of the foregoing discussion, appears to be collusive and aimed at protecting a person, whose eviction order stands affirmed up to the Apex Court. 18. I, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to interfere in the matter. The Parawana Dakhal, that has been issued by means of an impugned order, is hereby affirmed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the shop in question, after evicting the opposite party No. 2, may be sealed by the Court Amin, to be released in favour of the person, who obtains an appropriate order in this regard, from the court of competent jurisdiction, be it the revisionists or the opposite party No. 1. 19. Subject to the above directions, this revision is dismissed.