TILAK RAJ Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Tulsi Ram respondent, hereinafter called 'D.H.', was inducted as tenant in certain premises, situate in Shimla Town, by respondents Kuldeep Kumar, Sudarshna Devi, one Vidya Devi (now deceased) and several other persons. In April, 1987, he was illegally and forcibly dispossessed by the landlords. A suit was filed by Tulsi Ram, under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, to recover the possession. That came to be decreed on 25.5.1991. The landlords, against whom the decree was passed, filed a revision in this Court, challenging the decree passed in favour of Tulsi Ram. The revision was dismissed in 2001. In the meanwhile, the landlords filed a suit, based on tide, sometime in the year 1992, alleging that Tulsi Ram had surrendered the tenancy. That suit was dismissed. Appeal filed against the decree of dismissal of their suit was also dismissed.

(2.) In 1996, Tulsi Ram filed execution petition seeking the execution of the decree passed in his favour in the suit, under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. All the J.Ds., including the present respondents and deceased Vidya Devi, were made party to that execution petition. The present appellant filed objections, under Order XXI, Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101, C.P.C., claiming that he had been inducted as tenant in the premises in question by Vidya Devi, deceasedJ.D., on 1st June, 1991. It may be stated here that the appellant (Tilak Raj) is the husband of one of the J.Ds., namely Sudarshna Devi and the son-in-law of deceased Vidya Devi, who according to him, inducted him as tenant. Executing Court dismissed the objections. Appeal was filed by the appellant before the District Judge. The learned Additional district Judge, to whom the appeal was assigned, has dismissed the same, vide judgment, dated 10.1.2006. Now, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the second appeal.

(3.) An objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the order of the Executing Court, as affirmed by the Additional District Judge, being not a decree, second appeal is not maintainable Rule 103 of Order XXI says that an order passed under Rule 98 or 100 of Order XXI is to be deemed to be a decree, inter alia, for the purpose of filing appeal. A Single Bench of this Court in Rajinder Kaur alias Kamal Preet v. K.R. Aggarwal and another, and a connected matter, interpreting the provisions of Rules 98, 100 and 103 of Order XXI, has held that an order passed under Rule 98 or 100 is a decree and the appeal is maintainable under Rule 103. In view of the above stated position tthe objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of the appeal is overruled.