Purusottam Lal Rungta and anr Vs. Raajesh Kasera and anr - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1020756
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnAug-16-2013
AppellantPurusottam Lal Rungta and anr
RespondentRaajesh Kasera and anr
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi civil revision no. 22 o”1. purusottam lal rungta 2. sushil kumar rungta .... petitioners versus 1. raajesh kasera 2. minakshi kasera ... opp. parties. coram : honble mr. justice d.n.upadhyay for the appellants : mr. n.k.pasari for the opposite parties: mr. nagmani tiwary 16.08.2013 heard. this civil revision application has been preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the learned sub judge, ranchi, in execution case no. 9 of 2008. the facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : the opposite parties have filed a petition under section 5 of the bihar building ( lease, rent & eviction ) control act, before the rent controller for fixation of fair rent in which the petitioner appeared and contested the proceeding where-after the fair rent to the tune of rs.840/- per month for disputed premises was fixed. thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the said order by which rent was fixed, but he could not succeed and the first appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the learned rent controller. thereafter the petitioner preferred revision before the commissioner which also stood dismissed. thereafter, the opposite parties have filed petition before the learned court of sub judge for execution of the order dated 17.11.1997 passed in bbc case no. 38 of 1995. during the pendency of said execution case no. 9 of 2008, the petitioners have filed petition under section 47 of the code of civil procedure challenging the jurisdiction of the court on amongst other grounds. learned sub judge 1 after hearing the parties dismissed the prayer made by the petitioners by order dated 3.5.2011 and hence this revision application before this court. it is contended that the opposite parties have also filed eviction suit vide title suit no. 57 of 1993 before the court of sub judge ix, ranchi, in which the petitioners have succeeded and the learned sub judge has held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between 2 the parties. against the judgment pronounced by the learned sub judge, the opposite parties have preferred first appeal being title appeal no. 4 of 2007 before the learned district judge in which judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was set aside and the opposite parties were directed to be evicted from the suit premises. thereafter, the petitioners preferred second appeal no. 105 of 2008 before this court which has been admitted and is now sub judice. he has also pointed out that the petitioners have also preferred writ petition (c ) no. 3880 of 2007 before this court, but the said writ petition stood dismissed for non prosecution. the petitioners have also filed c.m.p no. 130 of 2012 for restoration of the said writ petition. it is argued that the learned sub judge should have considered all these aspects prevailing between the parties before dismissing the petition filed under section 47 of the code of civil procedure. it is argued that the learned sub judge has also wrongly observed that no steps have been taken by the judgment debtor before this court against the order passed in revision. learned counsel for the opposite parties is absent. before adverting my views on the facts and circumstances of the case placed before me, i feel inclined to reproduce section 47 of the code of civil procedure, which reads as follows : section 47. questions to be determined by the court executing decree - (1) all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. on bare reading of section 47, it is very clear that the question arising between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. the issues involved between the parties in the present case is the petition filed under section 5 of the bbc act before the learned rent controller and the order passed by the learned rent controller stood confirmed up to the revisional court. so far as other issues relating to other 3 cases are concerned, those issues cannot be addressed under section 47 cpc. section 23 of the bihar building (lease, rent & eviction) control act, gives power to civil court to execute the orders passed under the said act and thus, the execution case was filed by the opposite parties before the learned sub judge for execution of the order passed by the rent controller. learned sub judge has rightly passed the impugned order by giving all details and there is no merit in this civil revision application. this application is, accordingly, dismissed. ambastha/- ( d.n.upadhyay,j.)
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 22 o”

1. Purusottam Lal Rungta 2. Sushil Kumar Rungta .... Petitioners Versus 1. Raajesh Kasera 2. Minakshi Kasera ... Opp. parties. Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the appellants : Mr. N.K.Pasari For the opposite parties: Mr. Nagmani Tiwary 16.08.2013 Heard. This civil revision application has been preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ranchi, in Execution Case no. 9 of 2008. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The opposite parties have filed a petition under section 5 of the Bihar Building ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in which the petitioner appeared and contested the proceeding where-after the fair rent to the tune of Rs.840/- per month for disputed premises was fixed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the said order by which rent was fixed, but he could not succeed and the first appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Thereafter the petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner which also stood dismissed. Thereafter, the opposite parties have filed petition before the learned court of Sub Judge for execution of the order dated 17.11.1997 passed in BBC case No. 38 of 1995. During the pendency of said execution case no. 9 of 2008, the petitioners have filed petition under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the jurisdiction of the court on amongst other grounds. Learned Sub Judge 1 after hearing the parties dismissed the prayer made by the petitioners by order dated 3.5.2011 and hence this revision application before this Court. It is contended that the opposite parties have also filed Eviction Suit vide Title Suit No. 57 of 1993 before the court of Sub Judge IX, Ranchi, in which the petitioners have succeeded and the learned sub Judge has held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between 2 the parties. Against the judgment pronounced by the learned Sub Judge, the opposite parties have preferred First Appeal being Title Appeal No. 4 of 2007 before the learned District Judge in which judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was set aside and the opposite parties were directed to be evicted from the suit premises. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Second Appeal No. 105 of 2008 before this Court which has been admitted and is now sub judice. He has also pointed out that the petitioners have also preferred Writ Petition (C ) No. 3880 of 2007 before this Court, but the said writ petition stood dismissed for non prosecution. The petitioners have also filed C.M.P no. 130 of 2012 for restoration of the said writ petition. It is argued that the learned sub judge should have considered all these aspects prevailing between the parties before dismissing the petition filed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that the learned Sub Judge has also wrongly observed that no steps have been taken by the judgment debtor before this Court against the order passed in Revision. Learned counsel for the opposite parties is absent. Before adverting my views on the facts and circumstances of the case placed before me, I feel inclined to reproduce section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows : Section 47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree - (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. On bare reading of Section 47, it is very clear that the question arising between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. The issues involved between the parties in the present case is the petition filed under section 5 of the BBC Act before the learned Rent Controller and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller stood confirmed up to the revisional court. So far as other issues relating to other 3 cases are concerned, those issues cannot be addressed under section 47 CPC. Section 23 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, gives power to civil court to execute the orders passed under the said Act and thus, the execution case was filed by the opposite parties before the learned Sub Judge for execution of the order passed by the rent controller. Learned Sub Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by giving all details and there is no merit in this civil revision application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)