Third-party resistance to eviction execution requires proof of lawful sub-tenancy; absent prejudice, pecuniary jurisdiction defects do not vitiate enforcement.

Third-party resistance to execution of an eviction decree succeeds only if the objector shows a prima facie independent legal right or lawful sub-tenancy constituting just cause under Order 21 CPC; in the absence of documentary proof of sub-tenancy, rent receipts, or other supporting material, the alleged sub-tenancy is too vague to defeat execution. The note also states that a landlord-tenant eviction decree obtained by the Official Liquidator before the Company Court was competent, and a later ownership challenge did not displace it. A defect in the Executing Court's pecuniary jurisdiction does not invalidate enforcement where no prejudice is pleaded or shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the objectors had established an independent right or lawful sub-tenancy so as to constitute a just cause to resist execution of the eviction decree; (ii) whether the Company Court had jurisdiction to pass the eviction decree and whether the Executing Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to enforce it.

Issue (i): whether the objectors had established an independent right or lawful sub-tenancy so as to constitute a just cause to resist execution of the eviction decree.

Analysis: The framework under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits adjudication of third-party resistance, but the objector must show a prima facie legal right amounting to just cause. The objectors failed to produce any documentary proof of induction as sub-tenants, any rent receipts, or any material showing the extent of the premises allegedly sub-let. The alleged sub-tenancy was found to be vague and unsupported. The decree of eviction against the main tenant was therefore held binding, and a sub-tenant could not resist execution in the absence of proof of an enforceable independent right.

Conclusion: The objection based on alleged sub-tenancy was rejected and the execution could proceed against the objectors.

Issue (ii): whether the Company Court had jurisdiction to pass the eviction decree and whether the Executing Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to enforce it.

Analysis: The Official Liquidator, having inducted the tenant and acted as landlord within the meaning of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, was competent to seek eviction before the Company Court under the Companies Act, 1956. The challenge to the decree on the basis of a later ownership contention was not accepted. As to the Executing Court, a defect in pecuniary jurisdiction, in the absence of pleaded or shown prejudice, was held not to vitiate the order.

Conclusion: The eviction decree was held executable and the objection to the Executing Court's pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The objections to execution were found devoid of merit, and the order dismissing them was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A third party resisting execution must establish a prima facie legal right or lawful sub-tenancy; without such proof, a decree of eviction remains executable, and a mere defect in pecuniary jurisdiction does not invalidate the order absent shown prejudice.

---