RAMCHANDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an illustrative case as to how a tenant makes mockery of entire judicial system.

(2.) A Title eviction suit was filed on the ground of default and personal necessity. It was contested by the tenant. The tenant lost and a decree of eviction was passed. The tenant filed an appeal being unsuccessful. He took over eight years of time in obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Then he impugned the judgment before this Court without success. He then approached the Apex Court and S.L.R was summarily rejected. Thus the judgment and decree attained the finality after a long drawn proceeding. Now when the landlord approached the trial Court for execution of the decree the son of the tenant appears and claims tenancy. This was never the defence of the father. The father had fought the litigation right upto the Supreme Court claiming himself to be the tenant and had never uttered a single word that the son was the tenant. Father&aposs plea that he was the owner of the premises was also disbelieved by the trial court. The son of the tenant now claims that in execution decree of eviction the entire family of the erstwhile tenant is likely to be affected and therefore he has right to obstruct the execution of decree and judgment. If such pleas are allowed it would bring the entire judicial system to disrepute. A decree when attained finality right upto the Supreme Court cannot be frustrated in casual and cavalier fashion. Provision under Section 11 Explanation VI of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that a decree against the father tenant would be equally 2/1/2013 Page 257 Sri Ramchandra Singh Versus Union Of India binding upon the son and accordingly l hold so. The application filed by the son opposite party, who has appeared before this court is held to be not maintainable and the impugned order is set aside.

(3.) THE application is allowed.