Order

20/11/2021

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’) whereby the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) has been affirmed.

2. The facts appertain are that in the year 2009, Sushila Devi - respondent No.1 had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001) seeking eviction of her tenant – Laxmi Music Mahal while also impleading its proprietor Anwar Ali (defendant No.2 therein).

3. During the pendency of the petition, Anwar Ali (defendant No.2) passed away, for which his wife Munni Devi (respondent No.2 herein) was substituted in his place as defendant.

4. The petition so filed by respondent No.1 herein came to be allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated 14.10.2011 and a certificate of recovery of possession was issued.

5. The said order dated 14.10.2011 attained finality as the judgment debtor - Munni Devi did not challenge it.

6. Meanwhile, the respondent No.4 Lajpat Bhan also filed a suit impleading Munni Devi as party defendant. Lajpat Bhan and Munni Devi entered into a compromise and accordingly Munni Devi handed over the possession of the shop to Lajpat Bhan – respondent No.4. The suit was thus, dismissed as withdrawn by the trial Court vide its order dated 10.08.2011.

7. According to the petitioner, Munni Devi had handed over the possession of the shop to Mr. Lajpat Bhan (respondent No.4) on 10.08.2011, who in turn, let out the subject shop to the present petitioner vide rent agreement dated 11.08.2011.

8. It may be noted that the petitioner had moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking his impleadment in the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 (Sushila Devi) which application was rejected by Rent Tribunal and the same has attained finality.

9. When the respondent No.1 – Landlord filed execution application pursuant to the decree dated 14.10.2011, the present petitioner filed objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Rent Tribunal and obstructed the execution.

10. The objection filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 07.08.2014, inter alia, observing that the petitioner had been given possession of the property by Mr. Lajpat Bhan (on 11.08.2011) during the pendency of the petition filed by Smt. Sushila Devi, so also during the pendency of the litigation between Smt. Sushila Devi and Lajpat Bhan who had rival claims of ownership regarding premises in question.

11. The trial Court rejected petitioner’s objection, in light of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’). It was also observed by the executing Court that the possession seems to have been handed over to the objector (petitioner herein) to obstruct execution of the decree.

12. Against the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, which has also been rejected by the Rent Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 21.09.2021. The appellate tribunal noted and considered all the facts relating to the petition so also the dispute pending between the rival parties and held that the present petitioner who has been handed over the possession of the contentious shop during the pendency of the dispute between the parties cannot be permitted to obstruct the execution of the decree.

13. Mr. Roshan Lal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 at the outset informed the Court that the possession of the shop in question has been handed over to the respondent No.1 – the landlord on 18.11.2021 and nothing remains to be decided in this case.

14. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order passed by the tribunals below argued that the petitioner has been illegally ejected from the pre