Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkishore S/O Shri Omkar Prasad Saxena vs Krishna Narayan Shrivastava on 27 July, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(0)MPLJ67
Author: R.C. Lahoti
Bench: R.C. Lahoti
ORDER R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. The Petitioner is a tenant in residential premises. Proceedings for eviction were initiated against him before the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-A of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The matter came up to this Court, vide order dated 3-11-1989 passed in Civil Revision No.. 17/89. This Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority but granted the petitioner time till 31-3-1990 for vacating the premises subject to an undertaking to be filed by the petitioner in terms of this Court's order. The order of this Court was not challenged further and achieved a finality. On 25-4-1990, the petitioner moved an application before the R.C.A. raising an objection that the landlord/non-petitioner being not a landlord contemplated by Section 23-J of the Act. the order directing ejectment of the petitioner in proceedings initiated by the landlord/non-petitioner was without jurisdiction and hence unexecutabie. The objection has been overruled by the authority. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. It has been held in V. D. Modi v. R. A. Rehman. AIR 1970 SC 1475 :-
"When the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record. But where the objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the question raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction."
This was a case where a decree for ejectment of a lessee passed by a Court of Small Causes was sought to be challenged at the stage of execution by submitting that the Court could not have entertained the suit as per the terms of agreement of lease and looking the user to which the land was put during the period of lease. Their Lordships observed that such question could not be raised during execution.
3. The objection that the R.C.A. could not have entertained the proceedings for eviction on the ground that the landlord was not a 23-J category landlord, is one which ought to have been raised during the trial. Either it was not raised or if raised it must have been decided against the tenant. In any case, lack of jurisdiction in the Authority to pass the order does not appear on the face of it. Such an objection, therefore, cannot be permitted to be raised at the stage of execution. It appears that the petitioner is an unwilling-dauntless-tenant resorting to meritless objections so as to stall eviction proceedings.
4. Reliance on a Single Bemch decision of this Court in Tekchand v. Uddhav Kumar, 1982 MPLJ 594 = 1984 JLJ 16 by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. That was a case where a decree for eviction had been passed without there being a ground available Under Section 12 of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 which was apparent on its face. This Court held that the decree was so fatal as to render the decree a nullity and hence such an objection could be taken into consideration during execution proceedings also. Such a case has no application to the facts of the present case.
5. The revision is wholly without any merit. It is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-. The Authority shall proceed ahead with the eviction of the petitoner without any loss of time.