Kashmiri Lal and another vs Madan Lal

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—The revision petition has been filed by the judgment-debtors against the order of the executing Court dated May 31, 1978.

Briefly the facts are that Raghunath Sahai was the owner of the property who gave it on lease to Madan Lal. Madan Lal sublet the property to Lal Chand who died and is represented by Kashmiri Lal etc, petitioners. Madan Lal Instituted a suit for ejectment against Lal Chand on the ground that he was his tenant. The suit was contested by Lal Chand. The trial Court came to the conclusion that was a tenant under Madan Lal and consequently, decreed the suit. Lal Chand went up in appeal before the appellate Court, which was dismissed. The decree holder started execration proceedings wherein the legal representatives of the judgment debtor filed objections, since he had died after the decree and before the execution proceedings. To the effect that. He decree passed by the Civil Court was a nullity is it was passed against the provisions of section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The objections were contested by the decree-holder, interalia on the ground that the Act was not applicable as he was not a landlord and Lal Chard not a tenant as defined in it. The learned executing Court dismissed the objections. The petitioners have come up in revision against the order of the executing Court.

It is contended by Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Civil Court returned a finding that Lal Chand was a tenant under the decree-holder. According to him, in view of that finding only the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to pass an order for ejectment u/s 13 of the Act. He also submits that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and in holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as defined in the Act, it had done so.

I have heard the leaned counsel for a considerable length but express my inability to accept his contention The first question that arises is as to whether the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to decide the matter under the Act the Rent Controller can have jurisdiction if the parties intaralia fall within the definition of words, ''landlord'' and ''tenant''. The word ''landlord'' is defined in the Act and it means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land and included a tenant who sublet any building or rented land in the manner the reafter provided and every person who from time to time derives title under a landlord From a reading of the definition, it is clear that a tenant who sublets the building will become a landlord in case he sublets the building in the way prescribed in the Act. The way as to how the building should be let by the tenant has been provided in the definition of word ''tenant'' which says that the subtenant will be included in the definition of the word ''tenant'' if he sublets the buliding to the sub tenant with written consent of the landlord. If the definition of the words ''landlord'' and ''tenant'' are read together, it is evident that a sub-tenant who has been put into possession of the building by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord would not be a tenant as defined, and the tenant, who put him into possession would not be the landlord. If the relationship of landlord and tentant did not exist between the parties no petition for ejectment was maintainable under the Act No doubt it is true that Madan Lal, decree older, took the plea that he was landlord and Lal Chand deceased was his tenant but that docs not prove that they were so under he Act. It is possible, that the relationship between them and not fall within the definitions of ''landlord'' and ''tenant'' at defined in the Act, but that relationship could exist between them under the general law. In that eventuality, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to order ejectment of Lal Chand deceased was there. It is also (sic) that no plea was taken by Lal Chand in the suit that he was a tenant under the plaintiff as defined in the Act and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit Consequently, it cannot be held that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to try the matter.

The second question is whether the Executing Court can go behind the decree and whether in deciding the matter it has done so. It cannot be disputed thru the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Therefore the pain question is whether in the present case, the executing Court had gone behind the decree or not. The question raised by the judgment debtor was of such a nature that In order to decide it, the question (sic) the parties would be governed by the Act or general law had to he determined There is no bar that she Executing Court could not go into such maters In my view in deciding the question, the Executing Court did not go behind the decree.

For there a one recorded above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.