Rajinder Pal Kaif vs Veena Rani

V.K. Jhanji, J.

Dr. Kewal Krishan filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short ''the Act'') against his tenantRajinder Pal for his ejectment on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The ejectment application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 23.9.1987 and an order of ejectment was passed against a tenant. Being aggrieved of the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred appeal before the appellate authority.

During the pendency of the appeal, Dr. Kewal Krishan sold the property in favour of Shrimati Veena Rani, respondent No. 1. However, appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the appellate authority on 28.9.1989. Revision petition preferred by the tenant was also dismissed by this Court.

Dr. Kewal Krishan filed an execution application to execute the decree. Objections were filed by the tenant who took the plea that Rajinder Pal has no locus standi to execute the decree as he had already sold the property to Shrimati Veena Rani vide registered sale deed dated 15.3.1989. Reply to the said objections was filed by Shrimati Veena Rani but the counsel for the tenant took the plea that Shrimati Veena Rani had no right to file the reply to the objection petition as she is not a party to the execution proceedings. In order to overcome this objection, Shrimati Veena Rani filed an application for impleading her as a decreeholder in place of Dr. Kewal Krishan. The application was opposed on the ground that the property was sold during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority and as such appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass an order of ejectment. It was thus prayed that the application be dismissed as the decree cannot be executed. The trial Court, vide impugned order, allowed the application impleading Shrimati Veena Rani in place of Dr. Kewal Krishan. The tenant has impugned the said order by way of filing the present civil revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court, while allowing the application, has placed reliance on Order XXI Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code whereas such provisions have no application where the decree has not been transferred by assignment in writing. His precise submission is that in the present case, decree has not been assigned in writing by the decreeholder in favour of the transferee and thus Shrimati Veena Rani cannot be impleaded as a decreeholder in place of Dr. Kewal Krishan.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the civil revision. It is not in dispute that the property was transferred by Dr. Kewal Krishan in favour of Shrimati Veena Rani on 15.3.1989 when the appeal of the tenant was pending before the appellate authority. It is also not in dispute that decree has not been assigned in writing by the decreeholder in favour of the transferee. Undoubtedly, under Order XXI Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, in order to enable the assignee to apply for the execution of decree, the transfer of the decree has to be in writing. Where that condition is not satisfied, the assignee of the decreeholder has no locus standi under Order XXI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code to make an application for execution but the non availability of Order XXII Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, would not debar a person from claiming benefit under Section 146, Civil Procedure Code. Transfer in the present case though does not come within the purview of Order XXVI Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, but competency of Smt. Veena Rani to make an application under Section 146, Civil Procedure Code cannot be denied. Thus, a transferee of the subjectmatter of decree can continue execution application if it is already filed by the transferordecreeholder or can file a fresh execution application on the ground that he is such transferee under Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is nothing in Order XXI Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, which precludes such transferee from carrying on the execution of decree obtained by transferor, subjectmatter of which was transferred. Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code reads as under :

"Explanation. Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of Section 146 and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subjectmatter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule."

A bare perusal of the above Explanation of Order XXI Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, inserted by Amendment Act (104 of 1976), makes it very clear that transferee of subjectmatter of the decree can apply for execution of decree without separate assignment of a decree.

In view of this, I find no ground to interfere in the order of the trial Court. Consequently, the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.