IMPORTANT POINT
The executing court must adhere to the decree unless it is set aside, and objections based on unrelated civil suits cannot impede execution.

JUDGMENT :

Since the issue involved in these appeals revolves around the same controversy, therefore, the captioned appeals are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are exposited from EX.F.A. 16/2024.

2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, there is a dispute going on inter se family members of the respondent/decree-holder herein regarding the partition of property. The shop in question in the present lis is part of the said property. Admittedly, the appellant(s)/judgment-debtor(s) herein are the tenants of the shop in question.

3. The shop in question was in possession of the appellant/judgment-debtor since 1980 and on 12.02.1982, a rent deed was executed between the appellant/judgment-debtor and grandmother of the respondent/decree-holder. On 22.11.2003, the respondent/decree-holder sent a legal notice to the appellant/judgment-debtor to vacate the said premises and for payment of dues. Since, the appellant/judgment-debtor did not pay the dues, therefore, the respondent/decree-holder filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”). The said petition was allowed vide order dated 07.10.2011 and the Court ordered that the appellant/judgment-debtor shall pay rent @ Rs. 200/month alongwith interest @ 15% p.a w.e.f 01.08.2002 till 16.02.2004 and thereafter, rent @ Rs. 220/month along with interest @ 15% p.a.

4. Thereafter, the respondent/decree-holder filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 06.01.2014. Moreover, the revision petition filed by the appellant/judgment-debtor was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2014.

5. On 22.07.2014, the respondent/decree-holder filed an execution petition for execution of the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2014. The first objection was filed by the father of the respondent/decree-holder which was dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2017 and warrants of possession were issued on 31.03.2017. The appellant/judgment-debtor filed an appeal against the order dated 24.03.2017, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.08.2017.

6. Thereafter, on 30.05.2017, the appellant/judgment-debtor filed their objections before the Executing Court and the Executing Court, vide order dated 22.03.2024, dismissed the objections of the appellant/judgment-debtor. Aggrieved thereto, the appellant/judgment-debtor filed this appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/judgment-debtor submits that the impugned decision passed by the Executing Court suffers with material illegality inasmuch as the same has been passed in blatant ignorance of the directions passed by this Court in an order dated 14.10.2009 in CS (OS) 1083/2008 titled as Smt. Jawala Devi v. O.P.Dhawan.

8. He submits that there was already a pending dispute between Ms. Jawala Devi and Mr. O.P. Dhawan, wherein, the respondent/decree-holder sought impleadment by way of an application bearing I.A. No.2524/2009 under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The said application came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2009 and this Court had specifically restrained the present respondent/decree-holder from altering the status quo with respect to either the possession or the title of the suit property. He, then, contends that the controversy involved in the said civil suit relates to five shops and some other properties. According to him, the shops in question which are the subject matter of the present lis are a part of the controversy of the said civil suit. He, then, contends that during the subsistence of the order dated 14.10.2009, which still remains in operation, no suit could have been filed by the respondent/decree-holder which according to him was instituted in the year 2013 before the Rent Controlling Authority.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/judgment-debtor further submits that when