MOHD. FARJAM Vs. SARFARAZ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 Sarfaraz Ahmed, claiming to be the owner of the suit property bearing No. L-5, Batla House, Okhla, New Delhi filed a petition seeking eviction of respondent No. 2, Mohd. Rizwan, pleading that he was a tenant under Sarfaraz Ahmed and had sub-let the property. The eviction petition succeeded. Attaining finality, in execution, Sarfaraz Ahmed obtained possession of the property in question. Appellant Mohd. Farjam, claiming to be the owner of the property, stating to have purchased the same from respondent No. 3, Ms. Sehnaz Begum, filed objections before the Additional Rent Controller alleging fraud in obtaining the decree and sought possession.

(2.) During pendency of the said objections, which we note would be under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant filed a suit alleging fraud in the decree obtained by respondent No. 1 and sought a declaration that he be declared the owner of the property and that the eviction order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller be declared void. He sought possession of the subject property. Damages were also claimed. Alternatively, it was claimed that a decree in sum of Rs. 22 lakh be passed, if title of respondent No. 3 was found to be defective.

(3.) Vide impugned order dated April 20,2010, the learned Single Judge has held that since issues of title, right and interest in a property in respect whereof a decree has been obtained, were set up by a third party they have to be gone into by the Executing Party; the remedy of the appellant would be to pursue the objections which appellant had filed before learned Additional Rent Controller.