Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited - Appellant
Versus
Pranaj Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And Another - Respondent
IA No. :CAN/1/2017(Old No. :CAN/449/2017), CAN/2/2018(Old No. :CAN/5426/2018) In SMA 4/2017
Decided On : 28-07-2022
CPC - Execution of Decree - Tenancy Dispute - Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 - [KEYWORD] - Tenancy Dispute - Order 21 Rule 99, 101, Section 151 of CPC - The court discussed the application of Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC in a tenancy dispute and the execution of a decree. The judgment also referenced key legal provisions such as the principles of possession, eviction, and execution of decrees, and their interpretations in the context of the case, influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, filed a suit for eviction against a licensee. The respondents, subsequent purchasers of the property, claimed possession. The court analyzed the dispute, finding that the decree obtained by the appellant against the licensee was executable against the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree obtained by the appellant against the licensee was executable against the respondents, as they were in possession without any lawful decree for eviction against the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the execution of a decree in a tenancy dispute, the rights of subsequent purchasers, and the applicability of Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree obtained by the appellant against the licensee was executable against the respondents, as they were in possession without any lawful decree for eviction against the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of the lower court were set aside, and the executing court was directed to execute the decree at the earliest.
JUDGMENT
Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The instant miscellaneous appeal filed by the decree holder of Title Suit No. 59 of 1987 is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No.4 of 2014 reversing the order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore in Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2012.
2. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed the order dated 19th December, 2013 in a proceeding under Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter described as CPC for short). The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Misc Case No.21 of 2012 rejected an application under Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC and dismissed Misc Case No.21 of 2012. As a consequence thereof it is directed by the executing court that execution case filed by the decree holder which was registered as Title Execution Case No.4 of 2004 shall proceed in accordance with law.
3. The learned Judge in the First Court of Appeal reversed the said judgment and order allowing, inter alia, the said application under Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC and dismissed Title Execution Case No.4 of 2004.
4. The said order passed by the learned Judge in First Appellate Court is under challenge in the instant Second Miscellaneous Appeal.
5. On factual score, it is not disputed that the respondents purchased premises No.403, Block-G, New Alipore, Kol-53 consisting of a two storied building by two registered deeds of conveyance dated 14th March, 2001 from its erstwhile owner Mohit Kumar Mukherjee. It is also not in dispute that the present appellant, viz, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd was a monthly tenant in respect of the ground floor in the said premises and one Arun Kumar Verma an Officer of the appellant/company used to reside in the said ground floor flat of the premises in suit with his wife Nitu Verma.
6. Sometimes in August, 2009, the said Arun Kumar Verma and Nitu Verma left the ground floor flat and went away with all the household goods and articles keeping the flat unlocked. It is alleged that Mahindra and Mahindra Company never approached the respondents/company nor did it tender any rent for the said tenanted premises in favour of the respondents. The appellant/company never asserted their tenancy right and did not take over possession of the ground floor flat of the premises in suit after it was vacated by the said Arun Kumar Verma and his family. Since the date the said Arun Kumar Verma vacated the flat, the respondents/company has been using the said ground floor openly, uninterruptedly and continuously.
7. Sometimes in the month of September, 2012 the respondents came to know that the appellant filed Title Suit No.59 of 1987 against his employee Arun Kumar Verma and obtained a decree for eviction. The said decree was put into execution being Title Execution Case No.4 of 2004. In the said execution case the appellant prayed for police help which was granted by the executing court and one day in the month of September police came to the premises in suit to evict the respondents.
8. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that the appellant/company was a tenant under one Mohit Kumar Mukherjee in respect of the ground floor flat including garden, garage, servant's quarter in respect of premises No.403, Block-G, New Alipore at a monthly rental of Rs.650/- payable according to English calendar month. The said tenancy is still continuing. One Arun Kumar Verma being an Officer of appellant/company was permitted to use the said flat for residential purpose by the appellant/company. Mohit Kumar Mukherjee filed Title Suit No.526 of 1986 in the 2nd Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore for ejectment of the appellant/company. The said suit filed by Mohit Kumar M
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by a tenant against a licensee can be executable against subsequent purchasers who are in possession without any lawful decr....
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to substantiate his claim of independent tenancy rights under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19....
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
A person in possession of property has the right to object to the execution of a decree under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, and the trial court must consider such objections before proceeding with execution.
Subsequent purchasers possess the legal right to execute possession decrees under CPC without needing an assignment of the decree.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
