GREENCITY VINCOM (P) LTD Vs. MANIKA CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 18th July, 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 127 o f2017 rejecting prayer for stay of further proceedings in connection with Ejectment Execution Case No. 10 of 2012 is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that since petitioner was in actual possession of the tenanted house in respect of which an eviction decree had been made against the original tenant without getting the petitioner impleaded as necessary parties, the refusal of the court below to stay the execution proceeding, initiated at the instance of the decree holder, was highly illegal. It was thus submitted by the petitioner that learned court below failed to understand the real purport of the prayer for stay even after admitting Misc. Case, taken out by the petitioner's praying for adjudication of their rights in application of the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 98 to 101 CPC. Thus refusal to grant stay, according to petitioner, would cause serious prejudice to petitioner who is in actual possession of the tenanted house, and accordingly proposed for granting an order of stay in connection with the execution proceeding already taken out by the decree holder/landlord.

(3.) Learned advocate for the decree holders/opposite parties controverting the submission raised by the petitioner submitted that petitioner had no legal right, title and interest or occupational right in the suit property, alleged further that the petitioner had created a false document of sub-tenancy one month after the passing of eviction decree. According to decree holders/opposite parties the creation of sub-tenancy was not in accordance with law, and such no reliance should be attached on it. It was proposed that in the event of eviction decree being implemented, if the petitioner succeeds ultimately in connection with their application registered as Misc. Case No. 17 of 2017, the petitioner may claim recovery of possession in respect of the tenanted house taking order of court even after he was dispossessed for implementation of the eviction decree. It was submitted with much stress that there left nothing to be interfered with, and the learned court below committed no illegality in refusing the prayer for stay.