An eviction order under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act is enforceable only against the tenant or their representative, not against third parties claiming ownership.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral)

This Execution Second Appeal has been filed by the decree-holder against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while dismissing his execution petition and allowing the objections filed by the third party objector. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary, which was allowed and he was ordered to be evicted on the ground of subletting. When the appellant filed the execution petition, Sh. Lakhmi Chand filed the objection petition. He was not impleaded in the original petition. While filing the objections, Sh. Lakhmi Chand claimed that he is the owner of the property and has constructed various shops, which have been let out to various persons and the appellant is neither owner nor landlord of the premises. The Executing Court, on the basis of pleadings, culled out the following issues for adjudication:-

"1. Whether the objector Sh. Lakhmi Chand is owner in possession of the suit property? OP objector

2. Whether the third party objections are maintainable in the present execution of decree? OP objector

3. Whether the decree in question is executable?

4. Relief."

2. The parties were directed to lead evidence. The courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove that Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary was ever inducted as a tenant or sub-tenant. Thus, the courts have held that the eviction order cannot be implemented against the third party objector Sh. Lakhmi Chand. Although, it has been held that Sh. Lakhmi Chand has failed to prove his ownership.

3. In this Execution Second Appeal, the respondents have not entered appearance. In fact, Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary (respondent no.1) is the judgment debtor. The contesting respondent (respondent no.2) was proceeded against ex-parte on 13.11.2019.

4. Learned senior counsel representing the appellant contends that Sh. Lakhmi Chand failed to prove his ownership and therefore, the courts have erred in allowing the third party objections. He submits that once the third party objector has failed to prove his ownership, the order of eviction becomes executable against Lakhmi Chand.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties, however, finds no merit in the same. Eviction petition filed under the Rent Act is a form of summary proceedings in which an order of evicting Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary from possession has been passed. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is in 'personam' and not in 'rem'. There is no evidence that Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary inducted Sh. Lakhmi Chand as sub-tenant. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller can be enforced only against the respondent or his representative. The courts have found that Sh. Lakhmi Chand is not the representative/sub-tenant of Sh.Surender Kumar Chaudhary. It has been established that Sh. Lakhmi Chand constructed various shops and rented out the same to various other persons, who are in possession. Electricity connection is also in the name of Sh. Lakhmi Chand.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out.

7. Hence, dismissed.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.