Gian Chand vs Satnam Singh and others

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the judgment-debtor against the order of the executing court dated 27th February, 1986.

Briefly, the case of the decree-holders was that they were owners of the property consisting of a shop on ground floor and rooms on the first, second and third floors. They let out the first floor to Gian Chand, tenant judgment-debtor, vide rent note dated 21st February, 1957, at the rate of Rs. 37/- per mensem. Consequently, they filed an application for ejectment against him on various grounds. It was contested by the tenant who pleaded that he was tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 37/- on the first, second and third floors and not on the ground floor. He also denied the other allegations of the Petitioner with regard to the grounds of ejectment.

The learned Rent Controller held that Gian Chand was tenant on the first floor of the building only. He, therefore, ordered his ejectment therefrom. Appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by the appellate authority.

The decree-holders thereafter started execution of the order of the Rent Controller. Thrice, warrants were issued regarding the first floor but the possession could not be delivered as none, of the decreeholders was present. Thereafter the execution was consigned to the record room. The decree-holders filed fresh petition and obtained warrants for first, second and third floors. The judgment-debtor filed objections that the decree-holders, according to the ejectment order, were entitled to the possession of the first floor only. The learned executing court came to the conclusion that they were entitled to possession of all the three storeys. The judgment-debtor has come up in revision to this Court.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that according to the order of ejectment, the decree-holders were entitled to the possession of first floor of the house of the demised premises and not of second and third floors. He has further submitted that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and issue warrants for possession of all the three floors.

I have duly considered the argument and find force therein. My attention has been drawn to the pleadings of the parties and the order of the Rent Controller. In the application for ejectment it has been specifically stated that the judgment-debtor was in possession of the first storey. Consequently ejectment was sought from that storey. The judgment-debtor pleaded in his written statement that he was in possession of all the three floors but that plea was denied by the decree-holders. A specific issue in that regard was framed by the Rent Controller which is as follows;

Whether Respondent No. 1 is in possession of first storey only of the demised premises as a tenant ? OPP.

The Rent Controller after recording evidence came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 was in possession of first floor of the demised premises as tenant. After recording that finding he ordered ejectment of the tenant from the first floor only. Before the appellate authority no objection was taken by the Respondent that the afore-mentioned issue had not been decided correctly. It is well settled principle of law that the executing court cannot go behind a decree. To my mind, there is no ambiguity in the order of the Rent Controller. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, I accept The revision petition and hold that the decree-holders are entitled to take possession in pursuance of the orders of the authorities under the Rent Restriction Act of first storey of the building. No orders as to costs.