TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'the objectors/resistors') in the execution proceeding (7/1997) taken by the landlord decree-holder Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. (hereinafter 'the company-in-liquidation') through Official Liquidator in respect of the final Judgment & Decree dated 5.2.1987 whereby the Company Court in company application No. 21/1980 under sections 446 and 477 of the Act of 1956 directed eviction of the tenant, one M/s. Mahesh Metal Works, Kishangarh District Ajmer from the premises let-out by the Official Liquidator of the Company-in-liquidation (hereinafter 'the Official Liquidator') on 7.4.1960. The facts of the case are that the Standard General Assurance Company Limited filed a winding petition No. 3/1956 under section 433 of the Act of 1956 on 7.10.1956 against the company Maharaja Mills Ltd. which was allowed on 7.10.1956. The Deputy Registrar of this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of the Company directed to be wound up. He then in his wisdom rented out a leased property of the company in liquidation i.e. Patni Bhawan to M/s. Mahesh Metal Works (hereinafter 'the tenant') under his letter/ agreement to lease dated 17.4.1960. As the premises rented ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Decree dated 5.2.1987 passed by the Company Court finding that the objectors had not made out any "just cause" to obstruct/resist the execution of the decree and giving of possession of the tenanted premises to the decree-holder Official Liquidator who as landlord had in the first instance let-out "Patni Bhawan" and appurtenant land to M/s. Mahesh Metal Works. Mr. V.L. Mathur appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 21.4.2014 is vitiated for reason of the Executing Court having decided by a common order, multiple objections filed by different objectors/ resistors against the final Judgment and Decree dated 5.2.1987 passed by the Company Court. Further, that the Court of Addl. District Judge did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to execute the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1987 passed by the Company Court. Counsel also submitted that the objectors/resistors had a legal right independent of the Judgment- debtor M/s. Mahesh Metal Works (hereinafter also "main-tenant") having been inducted as sub-tenants to various portions of Patni Bhawan in terms of Clause 2 of the letter/agreement to lease dated 7.4.1960 by the "main tenant". As lawful sub-tenants wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Co. Ltd. It was submitted that in the circumstances the Official Liquidator could not have approached the Company Court under his application No.21/1980 seeking eviction of M/s. Mahesh Metal Works nor the Company Court, acting in excess of its jurisdiction, could have directed at his instance by its judgment and decree dated 5.2.1987 that the company-in-liquidation was entitled to put in possession of the said Patni Bhawan and appurtenant land. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, appearing for the Official Liquidator has submitted that the entire proceedings taken by the objectors/ resistors in their application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC before the Executing Court were without any foundation, wholly frivolous and completely vexatious. It is submitted that albeit Order 21 Rules 97/101, 102 and 103 read with section 47 CPC has been broadly construed by the Courts to require the Executing Court to address all objections to the execution of a decree, yet unless a "just cause" is made out by the objectors/resistors, no indulgence is to be granted lest execution proceedings are unnecessarily prolonged and execution of a final decree obtained in accordance with law vindicating the rights of a decree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect thereof executable against them. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Company Court in company application No. 20/1981 filed by the Official Liquidator remaining, subsequent to the order dated 15.10.1982 passed in execution petition No. 7/1972 directing eviction of the "main tenant" M/s. Mahesh Metal Works, it was submitted that no such case was pleaded in the objections before the Executing Court, nor evidence thereon led, nor the point argued. Counsel submitted that, in any event, the aforesaid fact has no bearing on the controversy at hand, inasmuch as, one way or the other, the property in dispute was admittedly let out by the Official Liquidator to M/s. Mahesh Metal Works vide letter/agreement to lease dated 7.4.1960 and consequently the Official Liquidator was the landlord within the meaning of section 3(iii) of the Act of 1950. It was submitted that the application No. 21/1980 under sections 446 and 477 of the Act of 1956 at the instance of the Official Liquidator was therefore very well maintainable before the Company Court and nothing erroneous or wanting in jurisdiction can be attributed to the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1987 passed by the Company Court. Such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions under Order 21 CPC, it is apparent that no obstruction to a final Judgment & Decree passed by a Court can be created by any person without a "just cause". The starting point of a "just cause" to my mind would be where an objector / resistor prima facie establishes even a modicum of a legal right to continue in possession of the immovable property in dispute either claiming through the Judgment-debtor or asserting an independent right to the property. Reverting to the facts of the pleas of resistors/objectors in the case at hand, it is apparent that the objectors set up their right to possession of the tenanted premises, directed to be otherwise vacated under the Judgment & Decree dated 5.2.1987 on the basis of their purported induction as sub-tenants by the "main-tenant" M/s. Mahesh Metal Works under the letter/ agreement to lease dated 7.4.1960. However for this purpose the objectors/ resistors were not able to establish from a even shred of documentary evidence their induction as sub-tenants by M/s. Mahesh Metal Works. No writing in this regard evidencing the induction as sub-tenant was produced before the Executing Court. In S.B. Company Application No. 25/2014, Laxmi N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mahesh Metal Works and when. Further there was also no evidence to show which portion of "Patni Bhawan" and appurtenant land was allegedly sub-let to the objectors. The whole case of alleged sub-tenancy set up by the objectors was thus vague, wishy-washy and lacking in certainty otherwise essential for a valid contract of the alleged sub-tenancy purportedly created in their favour by the main-tenant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Technicians Studio Private Ltd. v. Smt. Lila Ghosh [1977] 4 SCC 324 has held that the answer to the question whether a relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties is dependent upon the facts and circumstances gathered in a case. On that test, in the case at hand, in the absence of any iota of evidence to make out a tenant-landlord relationship between the "main-tenant" and the objectors/resistors, it has not been proved that they were the sub-tenants of the "main-tenant" M/s. Mahesh Metal Works and ever inducted in the suit property in that capacity. The sequitur is that the objectors/resistors had no modicum right to bring their case within the words "just cause" under Order 21 Rule 98(2) CPC and to resist the execution of the judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t make a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay nullity or inexecutable. The High Court erroneously proceeded against the well settled principle of law by observing in the impugned judgment that since the respondents (petitioners before the High Court) were claiming through Papamiya and as they were not joined as party in the suit, the orders passed by the Court "would in no way affect or bind them." The above observations, in our opinion, did not lay down the law correctly." In the context of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is quite apparent that even in the event of the objectors/resistors having proved their sub-tenancy created by the main tenant M/s. Mahesh Metal Works, the judgment & Decree dated 5.2.1987 passed by the Company Court at the instance of the Official Liquidator against the tenant M/s. Mahesh Metal Works would be binding on them. That is however besides the point as in the case at hand, as detailed here in above no sub-tenancy created in favour of the objectors/resistors by M/s. Mahesh Metal Works was proved before the Executing Court. In my considered opinion in the facts of the case the objectors/resistors have n....