MUNPRAKASH PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. AMAL DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The appeal arises out of an order allowing a petition under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code in respect of a portion of a decretal premises.

(2.) Initially, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the landlord under whom the petitioner claimed had also applied under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code but had not pursued the matter and allowed it to be dismissed for default. Such order was carried in appeal. The Appellate Court, by its order of July 31, 2017, noticed that the independent right of the appellant, if any, had not been adjudicated upon. In such circumstances, the order impugned dated July 11, 2017 was set aside and the petition under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code was restored before the interlocutory Court for its adjudication in accordance with law. The petition has now been allowed by an order dated January 4, 2018. The fivepage order contains a page and a half of averments set out from one of the affidavits and the exercise of adjudication is evident only from the following:

(3.) It is elementary that a petition under Order 21, Rule 97 or 99 of the Code requires protracted adjudication, where the merits of the petitioner's claim to the property and the decree-holder's right to obtain possession thereof need to be gone into. No fresh suit is maintainable by either party. By virtue of Rule 103, the order of adjudication is elevated to the status of a decree. In terms of Rule 101 of Order 21 of the Code, "All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the court .." The relevant court is, by Rule 101, conferred with the jurisdiction to decide all such questions such that a separate suit on such matters need be filed.