Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3892
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Radha Raman and Another - Appellant
Versus
Madan Mohan Sharma and Another - Respondent
S.C.C. Revision No. 357 of 2016
Decided On : 15-11-2016
For the Revisionist :- Vishal Agarwal, Tarun Agrawal
For the Opposite Party :- Vinod Kumar Agarwal,Anshul Kumar Singhal
In Small Causes Court eviction proceedings, no question of title is required to be determined, and objections under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC cannot determine the title of the parties in the eviction proceedings.
Headnote:
Eviction - Small Causes Court Proceedings - Provincial Small Causes Courts Act - Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the eviction of a tenant-respondent from a property. The revisionists, claiming to be the actual landlords and title holders of the property, sought to resist the eviction of the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objection raised by the revisionists under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, which raised an issue of title, could not determine the title of the revisionists or the opposite party No. 1 in the revision. The court also noted that the execution of the decree for eviction, which had attained finality up to the Supreme Court, should not be barred by the pending objection.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the objection raised under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, the determination of title in eviction proceedings, and the interference with the execution of a decree that had attained finality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in Small Causes Court proceedings for eviction, no question of title is required to be determined or is determined. It also emphasized that the objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC could not determine the title of the parties in the eviction proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision and affirmed the eviction decree. It directed the shop in question to be sealed and released in favor of the person who obtains an appropriate order from the court of competent jurisdiction.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionists.
2. This revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.2016, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras in Execution Case No. 01 of 2016, whereby the decree of the Small Cause Court, directing eviction of the tenant-respondent No. 2 passed at the instance of the opposite party No. 1, has been directed to be implemented by the Court Amin, Hathras. A further direction has been issued that in case necessity arises, adequate Police-force may be provided for the purpose.
3. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the SCC Suit was filed by the opposite party No. 1 against the opposite party No. 2 for arrears of rent and eviction.
This suit was decreed and the order affirmed up to the Apex Court.
4. When the order was put to execution, the revisionists filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC. They thereafter obtained a direction from this Court in SCC Revision No. 316 of 2016 that the execution be not proceeded with till such time the objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC was decided.
5. The objection filed by the revisionist is that property in dispute is part of a Dharamshala, which is a Trust property. The property initially belonged to one Netram, who created a Trust by means of a registered Trust-deed dated 1.1.1945. The said Netram had two sons; Ram Narain and Damodar Das. The revisionists are sons of Ram Narain while the opposite party No. 1 is the son of Damodar Das, the other son of Netram.
6. The case of the revisionists is that by means of compromise decree, passed in Original Suit No. 48 of 1983 for partition, the Management of the Dharamshala was entrusted exclusively to the father of the revisionists, who therefore became its exclusive owner. They thereafter let out the shop in question to opposite party No. 2.
7. In 2005, a suit was filed by the opposite party No. 1, seeking a declaration as Manager of the Dharamshala. It is alleged that this suit was vexatious. However, the Trial Court decreed the suit on 19.2.2010.
8. The revisionists preferred First Appeal No. 213 of 2010, wherein an interim order was granted on 27.5.2010, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature and title of the suit property, namely, the Dharamshala.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the decree for eviction against the opposite party No. 2, has been directed to be executed even though the objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC filed by them, has not been decided finally. The executing court has held that this objection is maintainable.
It is also submitted that the decree cannot be executed in view of the interim order granted in the first appeal filed by the revisionists, which directed maintenance of status quo. Any execution would amount to violation of this interim order.
10. It emerges from a perusal of the record that the revisionists claim to be the actual landlords and title holder of the shop in question. On this ground, they seek to resist the eviction of opposite party No. 2.
Besides, as already noticed above, their contention is that their objection under Order XXI, Rule 97, has been held to be maintainable but has not been decided finally. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 cannot be evicted till such time, the objections are decided as directed by this Court vide order dated 5.10.2016 in SCC Revision No. 316 of 2016.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist.
12. At the very out-set, it would be relevant to note that the matter arises out of proceedings under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, for eviction of a tenant on the ground of arrears of rent.
13. It is settled law that no question of title is required to be determined or is determined in such proceedings, which are between the landlord and the tenant.
It is also settled law that a landlord is
