In Civil Appeal No. 6375 of 2023 -SC- Supreme Court allows landlord to evict tenants after two-decade legal battle; criticizes delay in execution of decrees
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia [30-10-2023]

Read Order: Pradeep Mehra V. Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs.) & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 6, 2023: In a significant development, the Supreme Court has allowed a landlord to evict tenants after nearly two decades. The Top Court ruled that the tenants were essentially disputing a final order of the court, which was not permissible under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Briefly stated, in a longstanding dispute, the respondents had been tenants in the property since at least 1996, with the appellant as their landlord. The disagreement centred around subletting and resulted in an eviction suit in the Small Causes Court. During the legal proceedings, a settlement was reached, which included a clause stipulating that the tenants could be evicted if they failed to pay rent for two consecutive months. The landlord claimed that the tenants had defaulted on rent, leading to an application under Order XXI Rule 11, CPC for decree execution. The executing court, in an order dated 12.02.2013, determined that the decree was executable. Importantly, this order was never appealed by the judgment debtor and had become final. However, nearly four years later, the judgment debtors applied to the executing court to set aside the 2013 order, reiterating that they had not defaulted on rent. The decree holder objected to the maintainability of this application, arguing that the 2013 order had attained finality and couldn't be reopened. The executing court upheld the objections, dismissing the judgment debtors' application on the grounds of maintainability. Subsequently, the judgment debtors sought revision of this order, and the revision was allowed, leading to the setting aside of the order dated 28.09.2017. In response, the decree holder filed a petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. However, this petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 08.01.2021.

The division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed concern over the appeal's delay, highlighting misuse and abuse of execution proceedings under Order XXI of the CPC.

The bench referred to an observation made as far back as 1872, during the operation of the CPC of 1859, where the Privy Council noted that "the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree." The bench expressed concern that even today, the situation had not improved.

The bench referred to Section 47 of the CPC and highlighted that it empowers the executing court to decide all questions between the parties related to the execution of the decree. However, the key point to remember is that these questions are confined to the execution process and in the said case, it did not allow the executing court to question the validity of the 2013 order that permitted the execution. The executing court can only do so if the original court's order lacked jurisdiction. Notably, the tenants/judgment debtors did not challenge the order dated 12.02.2013 before any forum.

“The reality is that pure civil matters take a long time to be decided, and regretfully it does not end with a decision, as execution of a decree is an entirely new phase in the long life of a civil litigation. The inordinate delay, which is universally caused throughout India in the execution of a decree, has been a cause of concern with this Court for several years,” said the bench

The bench further made reference to the case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others [LQ/SC/2021/2729], noting its significance regarding Section 47 and Order XXI of the CPC. In this three-Judge Bench decision, the court not only criticized the misuse of processes under Section 47 read with Order XXI of the CPC but also issued specific directions to be adhered to by all Civil Courts when exercising their powers in decree execution.

The bench expressed the view that the Bombay High Court had made an error by not intervening in this case. They believed that this case had needlessly prolonged for nearly two decades, which they considered to be an undue delay.

Consequently, the court concluded that both the order by the Appellate Court and the order by the High Court were legally unsustainable. Consequently, they allowed the appeal and upheld the order of the executing court dated 28.09.2017.

The court issued a directive for the executing court to proceed with and complete the execution process as expeditiously as possible.