[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvinder Singh Through His Lrs vs Surjeet Singh Through His Lrs And Others on 8 December, 2025
CR-9033-2025 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-9033-2025
Date of decision: 08.12.2025
Harvinder Singh (deceased) through his LRs
...Pe&&oners
Versus
Surjeet Singh (deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate for the pe//oners.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The pe//oners have invoked the supervisory jurisdic/on of
this Court under Ar/cle 227 of the Cons/tu/on of India, read with Sec/on
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to assail the order dated
09.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi-
sion), Malerkotla. By the said order, the Execu/ng Court dismissed the ob-
jec/ons preferred by the pe//oners, who are the legal representa/ves of
the original judgment-debtor, in Execu/on Pe//on No. Exe-212/2018 /tled
'Surjeet Singh v. Harvinder Singh'.
2. A perusal of the record reveals that the genesis of the proceed-
ings lies in an ejectment pe//on filed by respondent-landlord Surjeet Singh
against Harvinder Singh, the predecessor of the present pe//oners, in re-
spect of a shop, primarily on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Rent
Controller allowed the pe//on vide order dated 18.11.2013, ordering evic-
/on. The appeal preferred by Harvinder Singh was dismissed on 06.10.2014
by the Appellate Authority. Consequent to the evic/on order aDaining final-
ity, warrant of possession was issued during execu/on, resul/ng in delivery
of actual physical possession to the landlord on 31.08.2015. The execu/on
pe//on was thereaEer dismissed as withdrawn on 04.09.2015.
1 of 4
CR-9033-2025 [2]
3. Subsequently, the landlord ins/tuted a civil suit seeking recov-
ery of ₹3,00,000/- as arrears of rent for the period commencing from
01.12.2008. The defendant contested the suit. However, by judgment
dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), the learned trial Court decreed the claim,
awarding recovery along with interest. In execu/on of this money decree,
objec/ons were filed by the judgment-debtor through his legal represent-
a/ves, which have been rejected by the impugned order.
4. To assail the above order, the principal submissions advanced
on behalf of the pe//oners are threefold:
(i) that the decree dated 16.11.2018 is a nullity, being passed in a maDer
exclusively falling within the domain of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric-
/ons Act, 1949;
(ii) that the suit was barred by limita/on; and
(iii) that since the earlier execu/on in the rent proceedings had been dis-
missed as withdrawn, the subsequent execu/on ought to have been
treated as impermissible.
5. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no sub-
stance in any of these conten/ons.
6. At the outset, the argument that the Civil Court lacked jurisdic-
/on to decree a suit for arrears of rent is wholly misconceived. The scheme
of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric/ons Act, 1949 is clear and well-
seDled. The Rent Controller is a creature of statute and possesses only such
jurisdic/on as is expressly conferred by the Act. The Rent Controller is em-
powered to adjudicate specific grounds of evic/on, including non-payment
of rent. However, the Act does not confer on the Rent Controller any au-
thority to pass a decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The statutory mech-
anism under Sec/on 13 merely envisages assessment of arrears for the lim-
ited purpose of enabling the tenant to avail the protec/ve umbrella of "first
default" by tendering rent within the s/pulated period. This assessment is
2 of 4
CR-9033-2025 [3]
incidental to the evic/on proceedings and does not subs/tute a civil rem-
edy for recovery.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, re-af-
firmed that where the statute is silent, the jurisdic/on of the Civil Court to
try a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent remains intact. A decree passed
by a competent Civil Court, therefore, cannot be termed a nullity on the
ground that the Rent Act incidentally deals with arrears for evic/on pur-
poses. Hence, the conten/on regarding lack of jurisdic/on deserves out-
right rejec/on.
8. Equally untenable is the submission that the decree is liable to
be ques/oned in execu/on on the ground of limita/on. The pe//oners
concede that no appeal or other remedy was ever pursued against the
judgment and decree dated 16.11.2018. Once a decree has aDained finality,
the Execu/ng Court is bound to execute it as it stands and cannot go be-
hind the decree or examine its correctness on merits. Whether the suit was
or was not barred by limita/on, is a maDer squarely falling within the do-
main of the trial Court at the stage of adjudica/on; and the same cannot be
reopened in execu/on proceedings. The execu/ng Court is concerned only
with the sa/sfac/on of the decree and cannot inquire into its legality or
propriety, which is a seDled principle repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme
Court.
9. The reliance placed on the earlier execu/on in rent proceed-
ings being dismissed as withdrawn is misplaced. The withdrawal pertained
solely to the execu/on of the evic/on order aEer possession had been de-
livered. The subsequent execu/on pertains to an independent money de-
cree. The two proceedings are separate in nature, scope and cause. With-
drawal of one has no effect on maintainability of the other. Therefore, this
conten/on too lacks merit.
10. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the Ex-
ecu/ng Court commiDed no error, much less perversity, in rejec/ng the ob-
3 of 4
CR-9033-2025 [4]
jec/ons raised by the pe//oners. The decree sought to be executed is valid,
enforceable and immune from collateral aDack. The impugned order dated
09.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) calls for no interference in exercise of supervis-
ory jurisdic/on.
11. Consequently, the present revision pe//on is devoid of merit
and is hereby dismissed.
08.12.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
