Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) The present Execution Second Appeal has arisen in the following circumstances.

(2) Paras Ram, decree-holder, respondent in this Court, secured a decree for ejectment of Sardha Ram from his shop situated at Karnal. This decree was confirmed right up to this Court; Sardha Ram v. Paras Ram, Second Appeal No. 736 of 1960, preferred by Sardha Ram, having been dismissed by this Court on 12th December 1960.

(3) The judgment-debtor filed an application in the executing Court under S.47, Civil Procedure Code, read with S.13(1) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949, and S. 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. No.44 of 1954. It was stated in this application that the decree-holder could not eject the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree because the tenant could not be ejected otherwise than by an order passed by the Rent Controller under S.13 of the Rent Restriction Act, mentioned above, and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to eject the judgment-debtor in execution of its decree. This plea has been rejected by both the Courts below principally on the ground that the ejectment decree passed by the Civil has already been upheld by this Court in Second Appeal No. 736 of 1960. It may be mentioned at this stage that in Second Appeal No. 736 of 1960, it was contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the because the right of the landlord to eject the tenant and the liability of the latter to be ejected from the shop in question was exclusively determinable under S. 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction act. This Court, while affirming the decrees of the two Courts below, came to the conclusion that it was reasonable to assume that the Parliament placed the persons protected by S. 29 of the Central Act No. 44 of 1954 in a different and distinct category from the tenants whose case are governed by the Punjab Rent Restriction Act and has afforded them special protection uniformally throughout the Republic. The Courts below in the present execution proceedings have thus determined the dispute by adopting the view that S. 13 is inapplicable to the case in hand by virtue of the decision in Second Appeal No. 736 of 1960.

(4) On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended by his learned counsel that the decision in Second Appeal No. 736 of 1960, has not resolved the question whether in execution proceedings the Court can eject a tenant except in accordance with the provisions of S.13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Act No. 3 of 1949. It is contended that the only question, which was before the Court diction of the civil Court to entertain a suit for ejectment of the judgment-debtor. In so far as the question of eviction in execution of a decree for ejectment is concerned, it is S.13, which alone determines the rights and liabilities of the parties. In this connection reliance has been placed on Smt. Padmawati v. Mehta Faqir Chand, Letters Patent Appeal No. 285 of 1959, in which a Division Bench of this Court (Meha Singh and Gosain JJ.) while construing notification No. 1120-LG-(A)-51/11/- 411 issued by the State Government on 8th March 1951, exempting under S. 3 of the Rent Restriction Act all buildings constructed during the years 1951 and 1952 from the provisions of the said Act for a period of five years, observed that after the expiry of the period of five years the provisions of Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act become immediately applicable, though they did not bar obtaining of a decree of eviction, the excitability of such a decree being exempted expressly by the above provisions. The appellant in that case was held not no possess any vested right beyond the exemption granted for a certain limited period. Counsel has also referred me to Sham Sundar v. Ram Das, a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as (1951) 53 Pun LR 159: (AIR 1951 Punj 52)(FB). There S. 9(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act 1947, was held to apply to decrees passed before the Act cannot into force, and the section was held to prohibit all Courts from making any order evicting any tenant in execution of decrees passed before the Act. It is contended that the scope of S.13 of the Punjab Act is similar to the scope of s. 9 of the Delhi Act. Reliance has also been placed on Korach Punnen v. Parameswara Kurup Vasudeva Kurup, (S) AIR 1956 Trav-Co 1 (FB) where a Full bench of that Court held that where a tenant is sought to be evicted in execution of a decree on the ground that he denies the title of the landlord, the Order that will apply to the case is the order of 1950, which was in force when the tenants were sought to be evicted and not Order of 1122 that was in force when the suit was instituted. The date of the institution of the suit is accordingly not material for the purposes of that question. It was further observed that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rent Control Order the Court could pass a decree for eviction and the question whether the tenant would be entitled to the benefit under the Order would arise only when he is sought to be evicted in pursuance of the decree.