Judgment-debtor's tenants bound by decree, can be dispossessed without being made party defendants

The SC upheld the executing court's power to direct demolition of shops constructed by the judgment-debtor and dispossess tenants who were not parties to the decree. The court held that tenants claiming title through the judgment-debtor are bound by the decree and need not be impleaded as party defendants. When construction occurs during pending litigation and tenants are inducted without court leave, they can be dispossessed. The bailiff may remove obstructions and demolish constructions to deliver vacant possession to the decree holder. The HC and executing court committed no legal error in directing demolition and possession delivery. The SLP was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the executing court's power to direct demolition of shops constructed by the judgment-debtor.
2. Legality of directing dispossessing tenants not parties to the decree.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner, a judgment-debtor, had constructed shops on the property despite a decree declaring the respondent as the absolute owner. The executing court, under Order 21 Rule 101, is empowered to determine questions of right, title, or interest in the property during execution proceedings. The court is mandated to enforce the decree effectively, even if it lacks a mandatory injunction for demolition. The court's power includes removing obstructions or structures built without permission pending litigation. This ensures expeditious execution of possession orders to prevent delays or frustration of the decree. The executing court's authority to order demolition in such cases is crucial to uphold the decree holder's rights without resorting to separate suits, as multiplicity of proceedings is discouraged.

Issue 2:
Regarding the legality of dispossessing tenants not parties to the decree, the law establishes that tenants claiming title through the judgment debtor are bound by the decree and need not be individually impleaded in the suit. If tenants obstruct peaceful possession delivery, the bailiff is authorized to remove obstructions, including demolishing unauthorized constructions, to hand over vacant possession to the decree holder. The executing court's actions in directing the demolition of shops and delivery of possession were deemed lawful and in line with established legal principles. The High Court and the executing court did not err in their decisions, as confirmed by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.).

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the executing court's authority to order demolition of unauthorized constructions and delivery of possession, emphasizing the importance of expeditious execution of decrees and the enforcement of property rights without unnecessary delays or additional litigation.

---