JUDGMENT :

I. Introduction :

When the successful decree-holder takes out eviction proceedings and wants to evict the tenant, the occupier obstructs. That obstruction results in adjudication, and that adjudication favours the owner. Aggrieved, the obstructor appeals, and that appeal favours the obstructor. Then, the owner challenges: Writ Petition No.5342 of 2018.

2. In fact, besides the obstruction petition, the trial Court also considers the owner’s application for mesne profits and allows it. The Appellate Court, however, holds that the question of mesne profits is interlinked with that of possession; it refuses to affirm the trial Court’s order. So, the landlord files the second writ petition: WP No. 5341 of 2018.

3. The owner maintains that the original tenant has breached the contract; therefore, the Obstructor, put in possession by the tenant, should take the consequences. He need not be heard independently. The Obstructor, conversely, asserts that his right is independent, and the eviction decree does not bind him; so he should be given an opportunity to vindicate his version. Whose plea should prevail? Let us see.

4. As both the Writ Petitions, to employ the appellate Court’s expression, are interlinked, I have taken them up for consideration together.

II. Facts :

(a) First Round of Eviction:

5. The tenancy began in 1930. In 1969, Baliga, the original owner, sued Satyavathi Kapoor, the original tenant, for eviction. In September 1981, the suit ended in a compromise. As a part of the compromise, Satyavathi wrote a letter to Baliga admitting that she had divided the first floor of the leased property into 17 compartments and put others in possession of those compartments. She has given the names of those persons compartment-wise. Among those occupiers, Jugal Kishor Sharda, Sharda Impex Pvt., Ltd., and L. Ramachandran occupied Compartment Nos.5, 5A, and 5B respectively. Satyavathi gave that letter “as part and parcel of the consent agreement.” In that letter, Satyavathi has also requested Baliga not to mention in the suit the names of the occupants, “as it may create difficulties between them and [her]”

(b) Second Round of Eviction:

6. In 2001 the owner filed a suit—RAE & R Suit No. 1012/1743 of 2001— against the tenant (but not the occupiers) for ejectment. It was on these grounds : illegal subletting of the compartments; arrears of rent; illegal alterations; bonafide requirement. On 7 February 2007, the trial Court decreed the suit. The original tenant filed Appeal No. 204 of 2007. That was dismissed. Ultimately the original tenant filed Writ petition No. 1812 of 2009 before this Court. Though the Writ petition was admitted. Then, the owner filed Civil Application No. 840 of 2009 for interim compensation.

7. On 7 February 2007, in the application for interim compensation, this Court fixed the amount. And the tenant’s paying that amount was made the precondition for the stay in the Writ petition. Against this conditional order of stay, the original tenant filed Special Leave Petition No. 17928 of 2012 before the Supreme Court but could not succeed. As the tenant did not comply with the conditional order of stay, the owner filed Execution Application No.354/2012, seeking recovery of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 of CPC.

(c) Execution Proceedings – WP No.5342 of 2018:

8. When the Owner wanted to execute the warrant of possession, a few occupants resisted his efforts. In fact, Jugal Kishor Sharda, the respondent, along with five others, obstructed. Those Obstructors themselves invoked Order 21, Rule 97 of CPC. Eventually, all the six Obstructors filed exhibit 14 of 2012 before the Execution Court under Order 21, Rule 97 of CPC. That Court rejected the obstruction application, through its order, dated 30th January 2016. Further aggrieved, only Jugal Kishor Sharda appealed.

9. That is, Jugal Kishor, one of the Obstructors, filed Appeal No.112 of 2016 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court. That Bench, through its order da