Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an eviction suit filed by the original plaintiff (landlord) against the original defendant (tenant) in respect of Room No.8 at Krishna Bhuvan, Mumbai. The suit was decreed on 4 November 2004 on grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide need of the landlord. The defendant's appeal was dismissed on 22 December 2006, and the civil revision application (CRA No.42/2007) filed by the defendant was dismissed by the High Court on 5 May 2008. In the revision, the defendant gave an undertaking to vacate the suit premises by 31 October 2008, which was recorded by the court. However, the defendant failed to vacate. The plaintiff then applied for a warrant of possession, which was issued. When the bailiff went to execute the warrant on 9 February 2009, the applicants (legal heirs of the original defendant) obstructed execution. The trial court allowed the obstructionist notice, declaring the obstruction illegal. The appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes confirmed that order. The applicants then filed the present civil revision application. The High Court held that the obstructionists, being successors-in-interest of the defendant, were bound by the decree and the undertaking given by the defendant. They had no independent right to resist execution. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Obstructionist Notice - Successor-in-Interest - The court considered whether legal heirs of a judgment-debtor, who had given an undertaking to vacate the suit premises, could obstruct execution of the eviction decree. The court held that the obstructionists, being successors-in-interest of the defendant, were bound by the decree and the undertaking, and could not resist possession. (Paras 1-5)
B) Rent Control - Eviction Decree - Bona Fide Need - The eviction decree was passed on grounds of default and bona fide need of the landlord. The decree attained finality after dismissal of the civil revision application by the High Court. The court held that the obstructionists could not re-agitate the merits of the decree. (Paras 2-3)
C) Civil Procedure - Undertaking to Court - Binding Effect - The defendant had given an undertaking to vacate the premises by 31 October 2008, which was recorded by the High Court. The court held that the undertaking was binding on the defendant and her legal heirs, and failure to comply justified execution. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the obstructionists, who were legal heirs of the original defendant and had no independent right, could resist execution of the eviction decree after the defendant had given an undertaking to vacate the premises.
Final Decision
The civil revision application is dismissed. The order of the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes confirming the trial court's order allowing the obstructionist notice is upheld.
Law Points
- Obstructionist notice
- Execution of decree
- Successor-in-interest
- Bona fide need
- Eviction decree
- Undertaking to vacate
- Civil revision
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 63
Civil Revision Application No. 540 of 2019
Mr. N.P. Wagle for Applicants, Ms. P.J. Thorat for Respondents Nos.1(a) and 1(b)
Hansaben Purshotam Parmar (since deceased) through legal heirs 1(a) Heena Kanaiyalal Maru & Ors.
Smt. Kamlaben Babulal Bhatt (deleted) 1(a) Mr. Jagdish Chandrakant Sevak & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging an order passed by the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes in an execution appeal, which confirmed the trial court's order allowing an obstructionist notice.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (obstructionists) sought to set aside the order declaring their obstruction to execution of the warrant of possession as illegal.
Filing Reason
The applicants, being legal heirs of the original defendant, obstructed execution of the eviction decree and challenged the order allowing the obstructionist notice.
Previous Decisions
The eviction suit was decreed on 4 November 2004; the appeal was dismissed on 22 December 2006; the civil revision application (CRA No.42/2007) was dismissed on 5 May 2008 with an undertaking by the defendant to vacate by 31 October 2008.
Issues
Whether the obstructionists, being legal heirs of the original defendant, could resist execution of the eviction decree after the defendant had given an undertaking to vacate the premises.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that they were not parties to the suit and had independent rights.
The respondents contended that the obstructionists were successors-in-interest of the defendant and bound by the decree and undertaking.
Ratio Decidendi
The obstructionists, being legal heirs and successors-in-interest of the original defendant, are bound by the eviction decree and the undertaking given by the defendant to vacate the premises. They cannot resist execution of the warrant of possession.
Judgment Excerpts
This civil revision application challenges an order passed by the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes in an execution appeal.
The trial court, by its order dated 14 October 2016, allowed the obstructionist notice declaring the obstruction made by them to the execution of the warrant of possession issued in favour of the Applicants/ Appellants as illegal.
The suit was decreed on 4 November 2004, directing the Defendant to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.
This court, by its order dated 5 May 2008, dismissed the CRA. On an undertaking submitted by the Defendant to vacate the suit premises by 31 October 2008, this court, whilst dismissing the CRA, granted time to the Defendant to vacate the suit premises.
Procedural History
The eviction suit was decreed on 4 November 2004. The defendant's appeal was dismissed on 22 December 2006. The civil revision application (CRA No.42/2007) was dismissed on 5 May 2008 with an undertaking to vacate by 31 October 2008. The defendant failed to vacate, and the plaintiff applied for a warrant of possession. On 9 February 2009, the bailiff was obstructed by the applicants. The trial court allowed the obstructionist notice on 14 October 2016. The appellate bench confirmed that order. The present civil revision application was filed on 11 September 2019.
