MUKESH CHOUHAN Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed at the instance of objector (applicant) assailing order Dt.11.01.02 whereby Executing Court (ADJ No. 3, Jaipur City) over-ruled objections raised in his application (Civil Misc. Case No. 24/01) under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, are that decree holder (respondent No. 1) instituted civil Suit No. 75/98 against tenant-respondent No. 2 (judgment-debtor) seeking his eviction on the ground of personal necessity, material alterations and sub- letting. Plea of sub-letting was not pressed against tenant (Subhash Pareek). The tenant (respondent No. 2) did no appear despite service and accordingly ex parte decree was passed by competent Court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.17.8.2000.

(3.) DECREE -holder (respondent No. 1) filed application for execution of decree (supra) and taking possession of suit premises. In course of execution proceedings, petitioner moved an application under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC raising objection to the execution, inter-alia averring that he is in possession of decreetal premises as a tenant since May, 1998 on monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-, where he has been running scooter repairing shop and is occupying the suit premises whereas Subhash Pareek against whom decree has been obtained, was never in possession after May, 1998 as he was not his tenant. It was further averred that had Subhash Pareek been occupying as tenant in suit premises, notices in ordinary course could have been served upon him but since petitioner was in possession over it as tenant, notice of Subhash Pareek could not have been served. In support of averments made in the application, petitioner produced copies of electricity bills, letter head, Bank pass-book and other documents in order to show his possession over the suit premises as tenant since May, 1998 and prayed that without impleading him as party and affording opportunity of hearing, the decree obtained by the decree holder is liable to be set aside.