SUNIL CHANDRA JAIN Vs. JITAN PANWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the records ourselves, we have no doubt that the ap?peal has no merit and must fail, and that the learned District Judge has right?ly rejected the application filed by the Appellant under S.47 of the Civil P.C. 1908.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may shortly be stated. An ex parte decree for eviction was passed by the learned District Judge in favour of the landlord/decree-holder against the tenants judgment-debtors and the decree-holder has put the decree into execution. The appellant before us has filed an ob?jection under S.47. Civil P.C. 1908, to the execution of the said decree mainly on the ground that the predecessor of the judgment- debtors surrendered the tenancy in respect of the suit premises in favour of the landlord/decree-holder long before the suit and the appellant was then inducted as a tenant by the landlord/decree-holder and is in posses?sion of the suit-premises since then as such tenant. And the objector according?ly contended that he not having been made a party to the ejectment suit, the decree is not binding on him. This is how the appellant, figuring as the ob?jector in the execution proceeding has made out his case in paragraph 4 of his application under Sec.47 of the Civil P.C. :-

(3.) This being the case of the appel?lant-objector, it is difficult to understand how he can object under Sec.47 of the Civil P.C. to the execution of the decree to which he was admittedly not a party. If, as the objector contends, he is now the tenant in respect of the suit premises under the landlord/decree-holder, but still the latter has obtained a decree of ejectment only against his earlier ten?ants, the objector can simply ignore the decree and may even resist or obstruct the execution of the decree. And if the decree-holder applies to the Court com?plaining of such resistance or obstruction under O.21. R.97, Civil P.C. the Court shall make an order dismissing the ap?plication if "the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned" by the objector "claimant in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than judgment-debtor." But that is entirely a different matter about which we are not obviously required to express, nor are expressing, any opinion.