Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner -decree holder under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Suit No. 3/2014 by which order, the learned Court below had allowed the application filed by the respondent/tenant under Order 47 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising objection against the execution of the eviction decree against them.
(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the landlord -decree -holder aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Executing Court in an eviction decree staying the execution of the eviction decree on the ground that on account of a status -quo order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a separate title dispute between the present landlord -Oswal Singh Sabha, and another person Mahendra Singh namely, SLP No. 7933/2007 "Ghewarchand & Ors. v. M/s. Mahendra Singh & Ors.", a status -quo order was passed on 03.08.2007. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the learned Trial Court dated 09.10.2014 is quoted herein below for ready reference: - - The learned counsel for the petitioner -landlord -decree -holder Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narendra Thanvi submitted that the eviction decree has, admittedly, been become final with the rejection of the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 118/2013 "M/s. J.K. & Company v. Oswal Singh Sabha" filed by the tenant on 16.02.2015 by the coordinate Bench of this Court in which, in view of the wide definition of the 'landlord', this very contention of the appellant -defendant -tenant, that the question with regard to the respondent's ownership over the premises in question, goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, the second appeal of the defendant deserves to be admitted on the substantial question of law arising in the matter, was negatived by the learned Single Judge and the second appeal preferred by the appellant M/s. J.K. & Co. (respondent herein) was dismissed with the following observations: - - "9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while not pressing the grounds raised assailing the findings of the first appellate court on issue No. 1 & 2 framed by the trial court, contended that in view of the judgment of this court dated 4.12.06 passed in S.B.C. First Appeal No. 52/97, the respondent herein, cannot be considered to be owner of the premises in question and therefore, it is not entitled for decree of eviction against the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the question with regard to the respondent's ownership over the premises in question, goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC deserves to be allowed and while taking the documents annexed thereto on record, the appeal deserves to be admitted on the substantial question of law arising in the matter. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent being not the owner of the property, the suit for eviction preferred by it, must fail. 10. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that unless the appeal preferred is admitted by this court on the substantial question of law involved, the question of entertaining the application preferred by the appellant under Order XXXXI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that since the grounds raised in the appeal questioning the findings on issue No. 1 & 2 are not pressed by the appellant, the appeal preferred deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute and therefore, the appellant which is admittedly the tenant of the respondent, cannot be permitted to contend that the respondent is not entitled for decree of eviction inasmuch as, the suit preferred by it for possession against Mahendra Singh and others, stands dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the special leave petition preferred by Ghewar Chand and others, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and decree dated 4.12.06 passed by this court is pending consideration and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the suit preferred by Ghewar Chand and others as representatives of Oswal Singh Sabha against Mahendra Singh and others for possession of the property, stands dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, a contract of tenancy between the landlord and tenant must exists before the landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant under the provisions of the Act of 1950. The words "landlord" and "tenant" stand defined under Section 3(iii) and 3(vii) of the Act of 1950 respectively. In order to appreciate the question raised, it will be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 3(iii) and 3(vii) of the Act of 1950, which read as under: - - "(iii) "landlord" means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; it includes a tenant relation to a sub -tenant. (vii) "tenant" means - (a) the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent, is or, but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act; and (b) in the event of death of the person as is referred to in sub -clause (a), his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir in accordance with the personal law applicable to him who had been, in the case of premises leased out for residential purpose, ordinarily residing and in the case of premises leased out for commercial or business purposes, ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death." 13. A bare perusal of the definition of "landlord" quoted hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that the ownership of the premises is not the essential characteristic of a landlord rather, it is the receipt of the rent or the entitlement to receive the rent. The definition of "landlord" as set out u/s. 3(iii) is very wide and it includes in itself event he persons who are not actual landlords in common parlance. Thus, for the determination of the question of landlord and tenant relationship in a suit for eviction under the provisions of the Act of 1950, the question of title or ownership of the premises is not required to be gone into, but, the questions with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship, their rights and liabilities arising in the matter have to be determined. 14. In the instant case, the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, the appellant, who is occupying the premises as tenant of the respondent, has no right to question its title over the premises in question in a suit for eviction and the court is not required to determine the question of title or ownership over the disputed premises. Therefore, the documents sought to be produced by the appellant by way of application under Order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC so as to question the ownership of the landlord over the premises in question, are not germane to the dispute adjudicated by the courts below, in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, the application preferred by the appellant under Order XXXXI Rule 27 CPC deserves to be dismissed. 15. No other point has been pressed by the counsel for the appellant. 16. In view of the discussion above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in this second appeal. 17. In the result, the second appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/ -(SANGEET LODHA), J."
(3.) THE learned counsel Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narendra Thanvi submitted that the question of title or ownership in a suit for eviction is of no relevance and it is the settled legal position of law and, therefore, pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 7933/2007 can not affect the rights of the landlord/appellant -Oswal Singh Sabha, in the present matter of eviction of the respondent and, therefore, also the impugned order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Court below whereby, the execution proceedings were stayed in view of the status -quo order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, deserves to be set aside.;