Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the tenants (applicants) challenging the order dated 27/28.11.2008 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bandra in Revision Application No.60 of 2008. That revision had upheld the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 3.12.2007 in Execution Application No.2258 of 2006 in R.A.E.Suit No.1854 of 1970, whereby the Execution Application was allowed and the respondent company was permitted to execute the decree of eviction. The suit for eviction was originally filed by the original landlord against the tenants. The suit was decreed on 23.11.1982. The tenants filed Appeal No.103 of 1983, which was dismissed on 7.10.1991. During the pendency of the appeal, on 14.7.1985, the respondent company purchased the suit property by conveyance. The tenants further challenged the decree by filing Writ Petition No.37 of 1992, which was dismissed on 5.10.2006, and a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent company filed Execution Application No.2258 of 2006 for possession of the suit premises. The tenants opposed the execution on the grounds that the respondent company was not a party to the original suit and had purchased the property after the decree, and that the decree was for arrears of rent, which could not be executed by a transferee. The Executing Court rejected the tenants' objections and allowed the execution. The tenants' revision before the Appellate Bench was also dismissed. Hence, the tenants filed the present Civil Revision Application. The High Court considered the submissions and held that the respondent company, having purchased the property during the pendency of the appeal, was a transferee pendente lite and was entitled to execute the decree as a representative of the original decree-holder under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court further held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and that the transferee need not obtain a separate assignment of the decree. The Court dismissed the revision application, confirming the orders of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Execution of Decree - Transferee Pendente Lite - Order 22 Rule 10, Section 146, Section 47 CPC - The respondent company purchased the suit property by conveyance dated 14.7.1985 during the pendency of Appeal No.103 of 1983. The eviction decree was passed on 23.11.1982. The tenants opposed execution on the ground that the transferee was not a party to the suit and the decree was for arrears of rent. The Court held that the transferee, having acquired the property pendente lite, is a representative of the original decree-holder and can execute the decree under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 146 CPC. The executing court cannot go behind the decree. (Paras 6-10) B) Transfer of Property Act - Assignment of Decree - Section 49, Section 52 - The tenants argued that the decree was not assigned to the transferee. The Court held that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree and is entitled to its benefit. No separate assignment of decree is necessary as the transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor. (Paras 8-9) C) Rent Control - Execution of Eviction Decree - Arrears of Rent - The decree was passed on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenants contended that the transferee cannot execute a decree for arrears of rent. The Court rejected this, holding that the decree is for possession and the transferee, as owner, is entitled to execute it. The executing court cannot examine the validity of the decree. (Paras 7, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a transferee of the suit property, who was not a party to the original suit, can maintain an execution application for eviction of tenants based on a decree passed before the transfer?
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dated 27/28.11.2008 in Revision Application No.60 of 2008 is confirmed. The respondent company is entitled to execute the eviction decree.
Law Points
- Transferee pendente lite can execute decree as representative of decree-holder
- Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
- Section 146 CPC
- Section 47 CPC
- Execution by assignee
- No need for separate assignment of decree
