Resjudicata—Eviction Petition – Ordinarily, decision of Rent Controller on question of title will not operate as res judicata, but where the question of title was directly decided in the proceedings by the Rent Controller, then the decision would be res judicata.

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Appellant has preferred this appeal against the orderdated 17.02.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),Chandigarh and judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed by AdditionalDistrict Judge, Chandigarh vide which objections filed by theappellant were dismissed and appeal filed against the said orderwas also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court.

2. Appellant Neelam filed objections claiming herself tobe wife of original allottee of demised premises namely DharamSingh. She further alleged that decree holder Ashwani Kumarwas power of attorney of her husband. Husband of the appellantdied on 20.03.2005 and thereafter, the said attorney wasautomatically terminated, but the decree holder kept on pursuingthe ejectment petition, appeal and revision and thereafter, filedexecution of the order of eviction against the tenant without anyauthority of the original allottee. Decree holder had filed aneviction petition against Vijay Bhatti and the same was allowed bythe Rent Controller vide order dated 07.11.2006 on account ofnon-payment of rent. The order of eviction was maintained inappeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on04.08.2007 and even by the High Court when the revision petitionwas dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2010.

3. The objections filed by the appellant were contestedby the decree holder and decree holder even disputed the factumof the appellant being wife of late Dharam Singh. The decreeholder claimed that he filed the eviction petition in his individualcapacity and thereafter, persuaded the litigation in his individualcapacity upto the High Court. Tenant Vijay Bhatti was ordered tobe evicted on 07.11.2006. The execution was filed by the decreeholder in his individual capacity and not as power of attorney ofDharam Singh. The decree holder further claimed that he beinglandlord of the premises is not necessarily to be owner of thesame. The status of the decree holder as landlord has alreadybeen accepted upto the High Court, therefore, he denied theassertions made by the objector/appellant. The case of theobjector/appellant is that her deceased husband was owner ofthe demised property and after his death, she has inherited thesame. Stallionjit Singh is in possession of the property under herauthority.

4. Perusal of the record would show that earlier StallionjitSingh filed third party objections, which were dismissed by theExecuting Court vide order dated 06.11.2012. Executing Courthas also recorded a finding that the judgment debtor hadconnived with Stallionjit Singh in order to scuttle the proceedingsof the execution. Order dated 06.11.2012 was maintained inappeal and revision. Thereafter, third party objections were filedby the appellant on the same premise. Executing Court/CivilJudge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dismissed the objectionsvide order dated 17.02.2016 by holding that the findings ofcollusion have not been set aside by any of the competentauthority till date. The plea of the objector that Stallionjit Singh isin possession of the demised premises under her authority astenant has already been rejected. The objections filed by theappellant have been termed as desperate attempt of theappellant to stall the execution proceedings. The Courts have notgiven any finding in respect of status of the appellant viz-a-viz theproperty in question on the premise that question of title cannotbe decided in the rent petition as the landlord is not necessarily tobe owner of the property. Order dated 17.02.2016 wasmaintained by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated11.08.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that thedecree holder has allegedly filed the eviction petition in hisindividual capacity without disclosing his status as to whether hewas owner or attorney of the original owner. Decree holder hasnot claimed himself to be owner of the premises, but has claimedto be landlord. In any case, decree holder is answerable to theoriginal owner for which his pleadings are