JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. VTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a tenant against whom previous landlord owner Sri Ramji Lal filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent being S. C. C. Suit No. 66 of 1975 which was decreed by JSCC, Khurja, district Bulandshahr on 10.9.1977. Thereafter on 12.9.1979 Ramji Lal filed Execution Case No. 100 of 1979 for execution of the decree before Munsif Khurja after obtaining transfer certificate from JSCC Khurja. After 2 days of filing execution application, i.e., on 14.9.1979 Ramji Lal sold the property in dispute through registered sale deed to Vijay Kumar respondent No. 3.

(2.) The tenant petitioner asserted that on 18.11.1979 Ramji Lal entered into compromise with him through which rent was enhanced from Rs. 40 per month to Rs. 60 per month and the tenancy of the tenant petitioner was continued, however, the said compromise was not filed in the Court as Ramji Lal resized therefrom. The petitioner filed objections under Section 47 and Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. (Misc. Case No. 124 of 1979) In the execution proceedings praying therein that compromise be recorded and in view of the compromise execution be struck off. Ramji Lal died on 31.5.1980. Petitioner filed substitution application for bringing on record Smt. Vidhyawati and Smt. Shanti Devi respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are the daughters of Ramji Lal in his objections under Section 47, C.P.C. (Misc. Case No. 124 of 1979). The substitution application was allowed. However, the execution application (Execution Case No. 100 of 1979) was dismissed for non-prosecution/non-substitution of heirs of Ramji Lal as none applied for substitution. The file of execution case was consigned to record on 2.12.1980. On 3.10.1981 respondent No. 3 who happens to be the son of Shanti Devi filed application for impleadment on the basis of the sale deed. He also filed another application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 98/81 praying for recalling of the order of consignment to the record of the execution case. Both the applications were allowed by Executing Court on 19.4.1982. The execution case was revived and Vijay Kumar respondent No. 3 was substituted at the place of Ramji Lal. Against the said order an appeal was filed by the petitioner being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 81/82. Later on the appeal was converted into revision on the application of the petitioner inspite of objection of respondent No. 3. The revisional court held that respondent No. 3 was rightly impleaded in Misc. Case No. 124 of 1979 as opposite party. Revisional court also held that respondent No. 3 had rightly been substituted in the execution case at the place of Ramji Lal.

(3.) It has been held by Supreme Court in J. Sarraf v. Raw Cotton Corporation, AIR 1955 SC 376 and Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 394 that apart from Order XXI, Rule 16, C.P.C transferee of property, which was subject-matter of the decree, can initiate execution proceedings even without transfer of decree by virtue of Section 146, C.P.C. The Supreme Court held that Order XXI, Rule 16, C.P.C. is only one of the provisions and not the only provision permitting execution on behalf of a person other than decree holder: