Rajasthan High Court
Puran Chand Sulania S/O Shri ... vs Smt. Santosh W/O Late Shri ... on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13463/2021
1. Puran Chand Sulania S/o Shri Ajmeria Sulania, Shop
Kipper, Jivan Bhawan, Out Side Delhi Darwaja, Near
Parshuram Bhawan, Alwar (Died) Through Legal
Representatives
1/1. Anguri Devi W/o Ajmerial Sulania
1/2. Rajbala W/o Late Puran Chand Sulania
1/3. Suman, D/o Late Puran Chand Sulania
1/4. Pooja D/o Late Puran Chand Sulania
1/5. Umesh S/o Late Puran Chand Sulania
1/6. Keshav S/o Late Puran Chand Sulania
All Are R/o Near Ganga Mandir, Outside Delhi Darwaja,
Alwar Legal Representatives In Possession Of Property
Late Shri Puran Chand
----Petitioners-Applicants
Versus
1. Smt. Santosh W/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar
2. Neeraj @ Naresh S/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar
All are R/o Rewari Presently R/o Vishvakarma Colony,
Tijara Phatak, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
07/03/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order
dated 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar
whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 21
Rules 97, 98, 99, 101 and 151 CPC has been dismissed.
(2 of 4) [CW-13463/2021]
The facts in brief are that a recovery certificate dated
30.10.2015 was issued by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar vide its
judgment dated even on an application filed by the respondents
under Sections 9 and 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
(for brevity, 'the Act of 2001') against Shri Puran Chand Sulania,
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. During course of its
execution, the petitioners filed an application as stated
hereinabove stating therein that ex-parte judgment came to be
passed without actual service of the summons upon the judgment-
debtor. It was further stated that as per the family settlement, the
decree-holders had no right to file the application for eviction. The
application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide
order dated 18.10.2021 which is impugned herein.
Learned counsel contented that while dismissing the
application, learned Tribunal did not appreciate that the recovery
certificate was issued without proper service of the eviction
application on the judgment-debtor. He further submitted that
from the family settlement submitted alongwith the application, it
was apparent that the decree-holders were not authorised to file
the eviction application as they had no right to let out the property
in question. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order dated
18.10.2021.
Heard and considered.
Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners regarding the judgment dated 30.10.2015 having been
passed ex-parte without proper service of notice upon the
judgment-debtor, is concerned, no material has placed on record
to substantiate the submission. In it judgment dated 30.10.2015,
(3 of 4) [CW-13463/2021]
learned Rent Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that ex-
parte proceedings were drawn against the respondent on account
of his none appearance or his counsel on 05.08.2015. The learend
Rent Tribunal has also observed vide order impugned dated
18.10.2021 that the petitioners neither filed any application for
setting aside the ex-parte proceedings nor to set aside the ex-
parte judgment and recovery certificate and such objection could
not be entertained by the Executive Court. Even otherwise also,
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this Court
that such an objection was maintainable in the execution petition.
A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Ramjiwan
Ramnath vs. Roop Chand: RLW 1956 117, held as under:
"25. We are also of opinion that the petition
made on behalf of Chhogmal on the 16 th
December, 1949, was not the sort of petition
contemplated under Order 21, Rule 22. Let us
see what he has said in that petition. He first
says that the decree against him was ex parte,
and no summons or notice was ever served on
him. That is an objection which no judgment-
debtor can take in execution
proceedings....................................................."
In view thereof, first submission raised by the petitioners
does not merit acceptance.
Quo second submission, this Court is not satisfied that the
decree-holders were not competent to file the rent eviction
application. It is trite law that in an eviction application, the
question of title of the landlord is not to be examined. It has not
been case of the petitioners that the judgment-debtor has taken
the premises on rent from a person other than the decree-holders.
In absence of any such averment, in the considered opinion of this
(4 of 4) [CW-13463/2021]
Court, learned Executing Court has submitted no error in
dismissing the objection raised by the petitioners.
Even otherwise also, it is well established that the Executing
Court cannot go behind the decree.
The order dated 18.10.2021 is well reasoned and is based on
cogent material on record warranting no interference of this Court
under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
