ANIL BADOLA Vs. YOGENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist -tenant is the judgment debtor before the Court against the decree passed by Judge Small Causes Court in the Suit No. 7 of 2007 dated 14.01.2013. The revision was preferred before the High Court, which was dismissed on merits but to do complete justice between the parties, another Judge of this Court granted one year time to the tenant for vacation of the premises and that one year time expired. The tenant again approached to this Court for extension of the time and this Court further extended it for three months more. During the period of quarter and one year, the tenant could procure information from the concerning authorities that the land in question, where tenanted premises were erected, was not in the ownership of the landlord but it was a "Nazul Land." In quite old times, this land was allotted to the predecessors of the respondents, who erected the shop/shops on the ground floor and the dwelling place of the first floor by making their own monetary investment and the premises were given to the tenant on rent.

(2.) SO , on the strength of this information, the tenant, instead of vacating the premises, moved to the Executing Court by way of filing the objections under Section 47 of C.P.C. These objections were rejected by the executing Court whereagainst the tenant has now approached to this Court. 2 Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Sarwan Kumar Vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal, 2003 AIR(SC) 1475," wherein it was laid down that if the decree has been passed by a Court completely lacking of the jurisdiction then the decree by itself is void ab initio and not executable at all.

(3.) I have read this precedent of Hon'ble Apex Court and find that the said precedent is not at all applicable in the present controversy. True, that decree, which was passed by a Court not competent to pass it, is completely unexecutable and void ab initio but the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said precedent has observed that the said question of jurisdiction of the Trial Court could have been raised before proper forum because the tenants, in that case, could not file their written statements before the Trial Court and no issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Trial Court was framed.