Court upholds Executing Court's order, rejects objections on various grounds. Decree execution affirmed.

The court upheld the impugned order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the Executing Court, dismissing objections raised by the appellants. The objections regarding the validity of the common order, pecuniary jurisdiction, legal rights of sub-tenants, authority of the Official Liquidator, admissibility of evidence, jurisdiction of the Company Court, and execution against sub-tenants were all rejected. The court found no errors in the order and upheld the execution of the decree dated 5.2.1987.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Executing Court's common order on multiple objections.
2. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Executing Court.
3. Legal rights of the sub-tenants.
4. Authority of the Official Liquidator to seek eviction.
5. Admissibility of evidence and documentation.
6. Jurisdiction of the Company Court based on ownership of the property.
7. Execution of the decree against sub-tenants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Executing Court's Common Order on Multiple Objections:
The appellant argued that the impugned order dated 21.4.2014 was vitiated because the Executing Court decided by a common order on multiple objections filed by different objectors against the final Judgment and Decree dated 5.2.1987. However, the court found no error in the common order, stating that all objections were duly considered and dismissed based on an objective evaluation of the material evidence on record.

2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Executing Court:
The appellant contended that the Addl. District Judge did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to execute the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1987. The court dismissed this argument, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] 2 SCC 244, which held that lack of pecuniary jurisdiction does not vitiate a judgment unless prejudice is shown. Since no prejudice was pleaded or argued, the objection was rejected.

3. Legal Rights of the Sub-Tenants:
The objectors claimed they were lawful sub-tenants under Clause 2 of the letter/agreement to lease dated 7.4.1960 and thus not bound by the decree obtained by the Official Liquidator without impleading them. The court found that the objectors failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as rent receipts or letters, to substantiate their claim of being sub-tenants. Consequently, their status was deemed that of rank trespassers, and they had no "just cause" to resist the execution of the decree.

4. Authority of the Official Liquidator to Seek Eviction:
The objectors argued that the Official Liquidator had no authority to seek eviction as the Company Court had previously held that the property was not in the ownership of the company in liquidation but of Maharaja Kishangarh Somyog Mills Co. Ltd. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the Official Liquidator, having inducted the tenant and received rent, was the landlord within the meaning of section 3(iii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Therefore, the eviction application was maintainable.

5. Admissibility of Evidence and Documentation:
The court noted that the objectors did not produce any credible evidence to support their claim of sub-tenancy. No documents or rent receipts were filed, exhibited, or relied upon before the Executing Court. The court found the whole case of alleged sub-tenancy to be vague and lacking in certainty, essential for a valid contract of sub-tenancy.

6. Jurisdiction of the Company Court Based on Ownership of the Property:
The objectors contended that the Company Court had no jurisdiction as the property was not owned by the company in liquidation. The court found this issue was not raised in the objections before the Executing Court and cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Venkatappa @ Moode (dead) by LRs v. M. Abdul Jabbar and others, (2006) 9 SCC 235, which held that no new case can be set up in an appeal. Additionally, the court stated that ownership is irrelevant in an eviction petition dependent on the landlord-tenant relationship.

7. Execution of the Decree Against Sub-Tenants:
The court referenced multiple Supreme Court rulings, including Suresh Chand Jain v. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Mathura, [2001] 10 SCC 508, which held that a decree of eviction against a tenant is binding on sub-tenants even if they were not parties to the eviction proceedings. The court concluded that the objectors, having failed to prove their sub-tenancy, had no legal right to resist the execution of the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1987.

Conclusion:
The court found no legal or factual error in the impugned order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the Executing Court. The objections raised by the appellants were dismissed, and the execution of the decree was upheld.

---