Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Jai Dev Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Surender Kumar Chaudhary – Respondent
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:-
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.
The court established that objections to execution based on prior claims are barred by res-judicata, and the executing court cannot entertain repetitive claims without new evidence.
Once an issue has been adjudicated in court, it cannot be re-litigated in later proceedings, maintaining the authority of previous judgments on the same matter.
A mere objection to the execution of a decree does not entitle an objector to a full inquiry unless accompanied by prima facie evidence of independent title or possession.
Interim relief in civil proceedings may be granted to abate execution, pending the appeal's resolution, recognizing distinct property claims.
A party not involved in eviction proceedings cannot challenge the decree, and the burden of proof lies on the objector to establish ownership and tenancy.
Point of law: Interference would be justified only in the event the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal is entirely arbitrary and perverse or in excess of jurisdiction.
Stranger claiming unlawful possession via tenant's oral sale promise lacks locus to obstruct eviction decree execution; suppression of facts and false pleadings abuse process, warranting dismissal wi....
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
