The transferee of property can execute a decree without a separate assignment of the decree as per the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties, petition is taken up final hearing and disposal.

2. This petition is filed challenging Order dated 6 May 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai allowing the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.1 and setting aside the order dated 23 April 2024 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The Appellate Bench has directed the Executing Court to decide the objection of Respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor about assignment and about maintainability of the execution proceedings filed by the transferee (Petitioner) under Order XXI Rule 16 or Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code).

3. A quick reference leading to filing of the present petition would be necessary. Flat No. E/4 on ground floor of the building ‘Hoechst Marion Roussel Staff Quarters’ situated at Dargah Road, Opp. Amar Nagar, Mulund Colony, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 082 are the suit premises. Respondent No.1 was in employment of the Company, M/s. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd.’ (Plaintiff) and the suit premises were let out by Plaintiff to Respondent No.1 under an agreement of license. In the year 1999, the operations of Respondent No.2 were apparently shut and voluntary retirement was offered to all the employees.The First Respondent opted for voluntary retirement scheme on 5 February 1999 and retired from service. He however failed to vacate the suit premises. On 19 May 1999, Plaintiff issued notice calling upon Respondent No.1 to vacate the suit premises. Since Respondent No.1 failed to do so, Plaintiff filed Application No. 59 of 2000 before the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the First Respondent. An objection was raised about jurisdiction of the Competent Authority. Application No.59 of 2000 was dismissed on 11 January 2005 on the ground that the Competent Authority did not have jurisdiction to decide the same.

4. On 1 April 2006, Plaintiff filed L.E. Suit No. 94/110 of 2006 under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court, 1888 seeking eviction of the First Respondent. By decree dated 30 April 2012, the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court decreed the suit directing the First Respondent to handover possession of the suit premises to Plaintiff with further order for conduct of enquiry into mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. The First Respondent filed Appeal No. 62 of 2012 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which came to be dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 9 May 2013.

5. It appears that the decree was not put in execution by Plaintiff immediately after the Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Bench on 9 May 2013. Considering the limited controversy involved in the Petition, it is not necessary to give details of merger/acquisition of Plaintiff- Hoechst into Aventis Pharma Ltd. and thereafter into M/s. Sanofi India Ltd. By Indenture of Conveyance dated 13 April 2023, M/s. Sanofi India Ltd. conveyed various immovable properties owned by it in favour of the Petitioner, which includes various flats in the building, in which the suit premises are located. This is how Petitioner claims to have become owner in respect of the suit property by Deed of Conveyance dated 13 April 2023.

6. Petitioner filed Execution Application No. 322 of 2023 in the Court of Small Causes for execution of the decree for eviction against the First Respondent. Since the execution was sought after two years of decree, the Executing Court issued notice to first Respondent under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code. The execution proceedings were opposed by the First Respondent by filing Affidavit-in-Reply dated 3 January 2024, inter-alia , questioning the locus-standi of the Petitioner to file the execution proceedings as well as non-existence of any documentary evidence of assi