SILVERLINE FORUM PVT. LTD. versus RAJIV TRUST AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 31-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
~ 
....... 
SIL VERLINE FORUM PVT. LTD. 
v. 
RAJIV TRUST AND ANR. 
MARCH 31, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCCHI, CJI., K.T. THOMAS AND 
S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder: 21 Rules 97,99,101, 102-
0bstruction by third party to execution of decree- Adjudication of-
Obstruction by "any person"- Interpretation of- Held, rules under Order C 
21 are intended to deal with every sort of resistance or obstructions offered 
by any person- Excuting Court to determine questions legally arising 
between the parties which are relevant for consideration and determination 
between the parties-Adjudication not necessarily to involve a detailed 
enquiry or collection of evidence-View of the High Court that resistance or D 
obstructions made by a third party to the decree of execution cannot be gone 
into under Order 21 Rule 97, rejected 
Rent and Eviction : 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956-Sections 13(2); 13(3); E 
16(/)-Sub tenancies-Creation of-Necessary Ingredients-Written 
permission by landlord to tenant to create sub-tenancy and notification of 
creation of such sub-tenancy by the tenant and sub-tenant within one month 
of such creation-Consent given by the landlord to his tenant for creation 
of sub-tenancy, held, valid only as between the landlord and his tenant- F 
Such consent could not be used by a sub-tenancy to create another sub-
tenancy under him so as to bind the landlord-Second respondent being a 
sub-tenant under the first sub-tenant-No notice of subletting to the landlord 
under Section 16(/)-Held, Advantage under Section 13(2) not available-
Second respondent bound under Section 13(3) by the decree for ejectment- G 
Appellant/landlord entitled to delivery of possession by removing the 
obstruction/resistance made by the second respondent/sub-tenant. 
The original owner of the property in question tenanted the premises 
to the first respondent who sublet the same to the first sub-tenant who 
subsequently created another sub-tenancy under it in favour of the second H 
587 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A respondent The appellant with whom the ownership of the property in question 
vested subsequently, filed a suit for ejectment against the first respondent/ 
tenant under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on 
the ground that the tenant had sublet th<> building without the consent of the 
landlord. A decree for ejectment was passed. Thereafter, the second 
B 
respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction against his ejectment. 
In the meanwhile the appellant moved for execution of the decree of ejectment. 
When the bailiff of the court went to the premises for effecting delivery of 
possession, he was resisted by the representatives of the second respondent. 
The execution court stayed dispossession in the meantime. The Second 
respondent filed an objection before the execution court raising a contention 
C 
that the decree was passed without making him a party. The execution court 
held that the second respondent being a third party resistor cannot avail 
himself of the remedy provided in Order 21 Rule I 01 of the Code. Nevertheless, 
the execution court ordered an enquiry to be conducted under Section 151 
C.P.C. into the allegations made by the second respondent. The said order 
was challenged by both the appellant and the second respondent in revision 
D before the High Court. The High Court upheld the order of the execution 
court and dismissed both the revision petitions. Hence, the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the second respondent 
who was a sub-tenant had no competence to question the decree for ejectment 
E 
and was bound by the decree of ejectment albeit not being made a party to 
the suit in which the decree was passed. 
On behalf of the second respondent it was contended that the instrument 
of lease as between the previous owner and the first respondent contained 
a term permitting the tenant to create sub-tenancy and thus he was entitled 
F 
to the advantages of the provisions contained in section 13(2) of the West 
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. High Court was not right in holding that resistance or 
G obstructions made by a third party to the decree of executiion cannot be gone 
into under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rules 
97 to 106 in Order 21 of the Code are subsumed under the caption "Resistance 
to delivery of po

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.