Back
1996 JLJ 368
A.R. Tiwari and N.K. Jain, JJ.
Nathibai (Smt.) v. Maheshwari Samaj Ramola Trust, Ratlam and others
Civil Revn. No. 869 of 1995; Decided on 22.3.1996.
(2) Execution - Court executing decree -- cannot go behind the decree -nor can it question its legality or correctness. AIR 1977 SC 1201 followed. [Para 8
(3) Interpretation of Statutes -- judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven -- he should iron out the creases by interpretative process -basic structure cannot be destroyed. (1949) 2 AllER 155 relied on. [Para 9
(4) Court -- has to fill gaps, clear doubts and mitigate hardships. (1945) 148 F2d 737, 739 relied on. [Para 10
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12 (1) (a) and 13 (1) -- eviction suit decreed on ground of non-payment of rent -- decree so passed will not become infructuous on deposit of rent in execution proceedings -- word ‘‘proceedings‘‘ used under S. 13 (1) -- does not include execution proceedings.
Section 13 (1) of the Act requires the tenant to deposit or pay an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid and to continue to deposit or pay thereafter month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be. If the word "proceeding" is construed as including "execution" also, and this provision is held operative subsequent to passing of the decree for eviction also, then latter part, as noted above, is rendered otiose as in execution no decision is to be taken and on deposit the executing proceeding will become insipid and decree will stand demolished at once for all time to come. To permit such a course is to alter the material which is just not permissible in law or logic. 1988 JLJ 213 = 1987 MPACJ 23, 1990 JLJ 434 and 1994 JLJ 174 overruled. [Paras 12, 13 & 21
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 141 expl. (as inserted) -- expression‘ ‘proceedings" under -- includes proceedings under Order 9 -- does not include proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution -- provisions under S. 141 – not applicable to execution proceedings. 1978 (1) MPWN 326 relied on. AIR 1962 SC 1886 followed. [Para 14
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 22 Rr. 3, 4, 8 and 12 -- exclusion of Rr. 3, 4 and 8 from the execution proceedings -- it is manifest that execution proceeding are different from other proceedings. [Para 14
(8) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12 and 13 -- expression "suit or any other proceeding" on grounds referred to in section 12 -- no question arises of such grounds in execution proceedings. [Para 14
(9) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.12 (1) (a) -- eviction decree under -- deposit of due rent in execution Court -- decree is not terminated. C.A. No. 226 of 1992 (SC) followed. [Para 16
(10) Interpretation of Statutes -- words not used in statutes -- cannot be read to enlarge the scope of provision. 372 US 728 (1963) relied on. [Para 18
(11) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12 (3), 13 (1), (5) and (6) -- provision of condonation of delay in deposit of rent -- cannot be confused with execution of eviction decree -- Court cannot evolve a different procedure. 1970 JLJ 703 referred to. AIR 1990 SC 2060 followed. [Para 19
(12) Execution -- Court executing the decree -- cannot go beyond decree. [Para 20
¼1½ U;k; & U;kf;d dk;Zokgh dk vafre y{; & fu‘p;kRedrk dh miyfC/k gSA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 429 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 7 ¼2½ fu"iknu & fMØh ds fu"iknu esa & U;k;ky; fMØh ds ihNs ugha tk ldrk & u og mlds oS/k gksus vFkok lgh gksus dks ç‘uxr dj ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1201 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 8 ¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & U;k;k/kh‘k vf/kfu;e ds rkus&ckus dh fo"k;oLrq ifjofrZr ugha djsxk & og fuoZpukRed çfØ;k ls mldh flyoVsa lh/kh djsxkk & vk/kkjh lajpuk u"V ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼1949½ 2 vky bZ vkj 155 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 9 ¼4½ U;k;ky; & dks yqIrka‘k dh iwfrZ djuk gksrh gS] lansg dk fuokj.k djuk gksrk gS rFkk dfBukb;ksa dk ‘keu djuk gksrk gSA ¼1945½ 148 ,Q 2 Mh 737] 739 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 10 ¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½ rFkk 13¼1½ & csn[kyh okn HkkM+s ds vlank; ds vk/kkj ij fMØhr & fu"iknu dk;Zokgh esa HkkM+k fuf{kr fd, tkus ij fu"Qy ugha gksxh & /kkjk 13¼1½ ds v/khu ç;qDr ‘‘kCn ^^dk;Zokgh** esa & fu"iknu dk;Zokgh lfEefyr ugha gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½ esa vfHk/kkjh ls visf{kr gS fd og HkkM+s dh ml nj ls ftl nj ls fd mldk lank; fd;k tkrk Fkk] laxf.kr jde dk lank; ;k fu{ksi djsxk rFkk mlds i‘pkr~ okn ds] vihy vFkok dk;Zokgh ds tSlh Hkh n‘kk gks] fofu‘p; rd ml nj ij HkkM+s ds cjkcj jkf‘k dk fu{ksi ;k lank; eklkuqekl çR;sd mÙkjorhZ ekl dh 15 rkjh[k rd djrk jgsxkA ;fn ‘‘kCn ^^dk;Zokgh** dk fuoZpu bl çdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd mlesa ^^fu"iknu** Hkh lfEefyr gks tk, vkSj ;g mica/k csn[kyh dh fMØh ikfjr gksus ds i‘pkr~ Hkh çorZu‘khy vfHkfu/kkZfjr dj nh tk,] rc i‘pkrorhZ Hkkx] tSlkfd Åij crk;k x;k gS] fujFkZd gks tk,xk D;ksafd fu"iknu esa dksbZ fofu‘p; ugha fd;k tkuk gksrk gS rFkk fu{ksi djus ij fu"iknu dk;Zokgh O;FkZ gks tk,xh vkSj fMØh] Hkfo"; ds fy, Hkh rqjar /oLr gks tk,xhA ,slk vuqKkr djuk fo"k;oLrq ifjofrZr djuk gksxk tks fof/k vFkok rdZlaxfr }kjk rF;r% vuqKkr ugha gSA 1988 ts ,y ts 213&1987 ,e ih vkj lh ts 23] 1990 ts ,y ts 434 rFkk 1994 ts ,y ts 174 myVs x,A ¿iSjk 12] 13 rFkk 21 ¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 141 Li"Vhdj.k ¼;Fkk var%LFkkfir½ & in ^^dk;Zokgh** & esa vkns‘k 9 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh lfEefyr gS & lafo/kku ds vuq-226 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh lfEefyr ugha gSa & /kkjk 141 ds v/khu mica/k & fu"iknu dk;Zokgh dks ykxw ugha gSaA 1978¼1½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 326 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1886 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 14 ¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-22 fu-3] 4] 8 rFkk 12 & fu-3] 4 rFkk 8 dk fu"iknu dk;Zokgh ls viotZu & ;g Li"V gS fd fu"iknu dk;Zokgh vU; dk;Zokfg;ksa ls fHkUu gSA ¿iSjk 14 ¼8½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12 rFkk 13 & /kkjk 12 esa fufnZ"V vk/kkjksa ij ^^dksbZ okn ;k dk;Zokgh** & fu"iknu dk;Zokgh esa ,sls vk/kkjksa dk ç‘u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrkA ¿iSjk 14 ¼9½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½ & csn[kyh dh fMØh & ns; HkkM+s dk fu"iknu U;k;ky; esa fu{ksi & fMØh lekIr ugha gksrhA flfoy vihy Ø-226 lu~ 1992 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16 ¼10½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & ‘‘kCn dkuwu esa ç;qDr ugha & mica/k dh O;kfIr foLr`r djus ds fy, tksM+s ugha tk ldrsA 372 ;w ,l 728 ¼1963½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 18 ¼11½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12¼3½] 12¼1½] ¼5½ rFkk ¼6½ & HkkM+k fuf{kIr djus esa foyac dh ekQh dk mica/k & csn[kyh dh fMØh dks fu"iknu ls xM+eM+ ugha fd;k tk ldrk & U;k;ky; dksbZ fHkUu çfØ;k fodflr ugha dj ldrkA 1970 ts ,y ts 703 fufnZ"VA , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 2060 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 19 ¼12½ fu"iknu & fMØh fu"ikfnr djus okyk U;k;ky; & fMØh ds ijs ugha tk ldrkA ¿iSjk 20
A.R. Tiwari, J.--1. Undaunted by unsuccess in the Executing Court, the revisionist revigorates her claim, in this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), of immunity from eviction in execution of the decree of competent Court, procured under section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), on the linchpin of deposit of all dues, as declared and decreed, in the Executing Court under the umbrella, deeming it protective in terms of section 13 (1) (5) (6) and 12 (3) of the Act, of the decisions of Single Bench of this Court reported in 1988 JLJ 213 = 1987 MPRCJ 23 (Lachhobai Rathore v. Registered Shri Murti God Madan Mohan Maharaj), 1990 JLJ 434 (Phoolchand Jain v. Chhotelal and another) and 1994 JLJ 174 (Bhagwandas Pawaiya v. Regd. Firm Kailash Narain and Bros.) and refuses to be disnested from the decretal accommodation.
2. Brief narrative of fasciculus of facts is that the non-applicant obtained the decree against Kanhaiyalal (since dead), husband of the applicant for eviction and recovery of rent/mesne profits from 1.1.1972 at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month in Civil Suit No. 198-N75 from the Court of III Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam on 4.5.1976 under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act which was affirmed by the First Appelalte Court on 23.8.1977 and attained finality thereafter as no Second Appeal was preferred. Execution was levied on 3.11.1982 for warrant of possession and recovery of dues quantified at Rs. 885-25 Ps. Notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code was issued. The applicant as objector offered oppugnation on 27.2.1984. Application was filed on 23.6.1995 stating that all dues from 1.1.1972 to 31.12.1995 (Twenty four years), amounting to Rs. 1,728.00 together with execution costs of Rs. 105.00 (total Rs. 1,833.00) have been deposited in the Executing Court and as such no eviction can be ordered and no warrant, as claimed, can be issued. The objections were, however, dismissed and order to issue warrant of possession was passed on 14.8.1995. This order is challenged in this revision petition.
3. The matter was being heard by the Single Bench. Further proceedings were put under 'eclipse' by order dated 24.8.1995. On 4.1.1996, learned Single Judge felt that this matter should be heard by a larger Bench and thus resorted to Rule 9 (1) of Chapter-I of High Court Rules. Hon'ble the Chief Justice then on 14.2.1996 ordered placement of this case before Regular Division Bench.
4. The core question, falling for consideration, is whether the aforesaid decisions laid down the correct law and whether the applicant on deposit of entire dues secured freedom from eviction in execution of the final decree and whether order under impugnment is not sustainable in law?
5. We have heard Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Ku. Vandana Kasrekar, for the non-applicants. The only point urged before us is that the order of issuance of warrant of possession merited to be mortalised, in the face of disappearance of default on deposit as stated above, on application of the decisions noted herein before.
6. We proceed to examine the worth of the aforesaid point.
7. Before noticing relevant provisions, we deem it proper to take note of the impact and importance of administration of justice. In AIR 1977 SC 429 (The Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. The Income-tax Officer, Circle-I, Ward-A', Rajkot, Gujrat), the Supreme Court has observed that eventual goal of judicial proceedings is to attain finality. None should be kept lugged and locked in litigation for long years. The delivery system of social justice is intended to reach justice to the common men who, as the poet sang :-
"Board by the weight of centuries, he leans,
upon his hoe and gazes on the ground
The emptiness of ages on his face
And on his back the burden of the world."
8. The crucial aspect is whether decree of eviction gets annihilated on depos
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
