S C KHANNA Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether objections to the execution of a decree under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 21 Rule 99 at the instance of a third party, who was not a party to the suit, is sustainable without discharging the burden of proving his title and possession on the suit property specially while resisting a decree of eviction.

(2.) The aforesaid question arises under the following facts and circumstances :- A decree of eviction was passed in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as against respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chander Malhotra which was put to execution. The petitioner filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that the decree was collusive between the decree-holder respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chandra Malhotra as it was the objector/petitioner, who infact is the tenant of the suit premises and he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by one Shri Man Singh Chudawat.

(3.) The Courts below rejected the objection of the petitioner recording reasons that although he claims to be a tenant of Man Singh Chudawat, the sale deed which was executed by Man Singh Chudawat in favour of the decree-holder respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 itself indicates that the tenant was respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chander Malhotra against whom decree of eviction has been passed and it was further held that the objector/petitioner was a sub-tenant in the suit premises. Thus, the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Court below against which this revision petition has been filed.