ROOP JAIN Vs. SRIKANT PRASAD VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties, perused counter affidavit and with their consent this revision application is disposed of at the admission stage. Tilte suit No. 1 of 1970 was filed by petitioner for eviction of opposite party No. 2 from the suit premises, detailed in schedule A to the plaint which was decreed on 21.4.1977. Title Appeal No. 46 of 1977 as well as S.A. No. 1 of 1983(R) filed by the opposite party No. 2 were also dismissed and S.L.P. in the Apex Court was also not entertained. Petitioner levied Execution Case No. 3 of 1977. It was alleged that on 3.1.1984 opposite party No. 2 executed a lease deed in favour of Nagendra Prasad Verma, father of present opposite party No. 1, but opposite party No. 2 denied it and asserted that such lease, if any, was forged and fabricated. Opposite party No.2 filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said execution proceeding, which was rejected on 4.2.2000/8.5.2000. C.R. No. 228 of 2000(R) filed in this Court by opposite party No. 2 was also dismissed on 31.8.2000. Thereafter on 1.9.2000 opposite party No. 1 filed a petition (Annexure 8), purporting to be under Order 21, Rules 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said execution case which by impugned order dated 28.8.2000, In spite of petitioner's objection, was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 2000 for hearing on merit and in the meantime further execution proceeding was stayed.

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 claimed to have been inducted over the suit premises by opposite party No. 2 by virtue of an agreement 20 years back and since then he was enjoying possession and had opened a shop therein know as "Ran Pyari Bhandar". Opposite party No. 1 is none else but son of aforesaid Nagendra Prasad Verma, in respect of whom, the petitioner had filed petition in this Court in S.A. No. 1 of 1983(R). Petitioner filed rejoinder (Annexure-9) thereto on 17.7.2000 stating, inter alia, that opposite party No. 2 had already denied any subletting with any third party including father of opposite party No. 1, who had no independent right, title and possession over the suit premisses. It was filed at the instance of opposite party No. 2.

(3.) It is well settled that the Court is not obliged to determine a question merely because the objector raised it. The questions which the Executing Court is obliged to determine under Rule 101, must possess two adjuncts. First is that such questions should have legally arisen between the parties, and the second is that such questions must be relevant for consideration and determination between the parties. In the present case judgment debtor-opposite party No. 2 had emphatically denied any subletting earlier during pendency of second appeal aforesaid in this Court and, therefore, there was no occasion for the stranger-opposite party No. 1 to advance his claim on the basis of alleged subletting by sada agreement 20 years back. In such a case, much depends upon the fact as to what was the status of opposite party No. 1 in relation to premises in question. He claims to be a sub-tenant inducted by opposite party No. 2 about 20 years ago, which was emphatically denied by opposite party No. 2 himself during pendency of the second appeal in this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that opposite party No. 1 is not in a position to establish his interest over the suit premises on the basis of alleged sub-tenancy said to be created 20 years ago. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and consequently the petition purporting to be filed under Order 21, Rules 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by opposite party No. 1 stands rejected. This revision application is disposed of. Reoision disposed of.