CR No.5068 of 2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

373

Civil Revision No.5068 of 2025

Date of decision: November 17

th

, 2025

Neelam Rani @ Neelam Singla

...Petitioner

Versus

Rajesh Kumar and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:Mr. R.N. Lohan, Mr. Ajay Kumar and

Ms. Manisha Rani, Advocates

for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate

for the respondents.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated

07.05.2025, by the decree holder (petitioner), vide which the

Executing Court instead of summarily dismissing the objections filed by the

judgment debtors/respondents, has framed issues and has adjourned the case

for evidence of the judgment debtors, thus, permitting the judgment debtors

to endlessly hold on to the unauthorised possession of the property in

question even after the eviction order passed against the

respondents/judgment debtors had become final.

CR No.5068 of 2025 2

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

2. Present petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for eviction of the

respondents from a single storey shop situated on Somnath Mandir Road,

Opposite New Subzi Mandi, Jind and which was bounded as under:

East: 7’-6” Geeta Ice Factory;

West: 7’-6” Somnath Mandir Road;

North: 19’ Shop of Krishan Mohan S/o Sh. Pawan”.

The said petition was filed against present

respondents/judgment debtors, who were tenants in the said property.

3. On 17.02.2016, the said petition was disposed of in terms of the

compromise and the present respondents were directed to hand over the

vacant possession of the suit premises to the present petitioners on

31.12.2020 and were also directed to pay rent at the rate of 4,125/- per

₹

month plus house tax against receipt. It was further observed that in case the

respondents failed to give the vacant possession of the suit premises, then,

the petitioner shall be entitled to get possession by way of execution.

The order dated 17.02.2016 is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Present:Shri S.K. Garg, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate for respondents.

The learned counsel for parties submitted that

they have reached at compromise Ex. C1 and compromise

deed is placed on record. They urged that the present

CR No.5068 of 2025 3

petition may be disposed off in terms of compromise Ex.

C1. Record perused. The compromise deed duly signed by

the parties and their counsels is placed on record and the

statements of parties regarding compromise has already

been recorded wherein they have accepted the compromise

deed as correct and requested to dispose of the instant

petition in terms of compromise deed. In given

circumstances, the eviction petition is allowed. The

respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession

of the suit premises to the petitioner on 31.12.2020. The

respondent shall continue to pay rent at the rate of Rs.

4,125/- per month plus house tax against receipt. The

respondent shall also regularly pay the electricity charges.

He will not deliver the actual possession of the suit

premises to any person other than the petitioner. In case

the respondent fails to deliver the vacant possession of the

suit shop to the petitioner in the manner referred above, the

petitioner shall be entitled to get possession by way of

execution. File be consigned to the record room.

(Rajesh Gupta)

RC, Jind. 17.2.2016.”

4. It is not disputed before this Court that the said order has

attained finality as no appeal has been filed against the same nor any

application for setting aside the said order dated 17.02.2016 has been filed.

Since the respondents did not hand over the possession, thus, the petitioner

filed an execution application and in the execution application on

01.08.2024, the Executing Court was pleased to pass the following order:

CR No.5068 of 2025 4

“Present:Sh. Naveen Bidhan, Advocate for DH.

Sh. N.K. Gautam, Advocate for Jds.

Today the matter has come up for filing

objections by Jds. Objections has not been filed by the Jds.

Learned counsel for the DH stated that warrant of

possession may kindly be issued and otherwise no ground

exist for filing objections by Jds as compromise has

already been effected between the parties, according to

which they had to handover the possession of the demised

premises i.e. shop in dispute to petitioner/DH by

31.12.2020, which has yet not been complied with by the

Jds.

In view of the submissions made, there exists

no ground for further adjournment for filing objections by

Jds. Warrant of possession be issued qua the suit property

on due compliance by the DH for 28.10.2024.

Report of concerned Bailiff shall be awaited

for date fixed.

Dated:-01.08.2024(Pooja Singla)

CJ(SD)/RC

Jind/UID No.HR-0293”

Even the abovesaid order has attained finality as no challenge

has been made to the same.

5. However, subsequently on 23.08.2024, an application was

moved by the respondents/judgment debtors for recalling the warrant of

possession issued on 01.08.2024, to which a reply was filed by the

CR No.5068 of 2025 5

petitioner/decree holder stating that the said application was frivolous and

was filed only to prolong the execution proceedings. The Executing Court,

instead of dismissing the said objections summarily, however, vide

impugned order dated 07.05.2025 chose to frame issues and adjourned the

case for the evidence of the respondents-judgment debtors. The issues

framed vide order dated 07.05.2025 are reproduced hereinbelow:

“Keeping in view the objections filed by the JDs,

this Court is of the view that before proceeding further in

this matter, it is necessary to provide an opportunity to

both the sides to prove about the status of the suit shop.

Hence, the following issues are hereby framed:-

1. Whether subsequent to sale deed no. 2971 dated 21

28.08.2023, JDs have become owner of the disputed

property? OPA

2. Whether the warrant of possession issued in favour of

the decree-holder is liable to be recalled? OPA

3. Whether the decree-holder has executed the sale deed

no. 2971 dated 28.08.2023? OPR

Case is adjourned to 09.07.2025 for evidence of applicant.

Date of Order: 07.05.2025

(Jasbir)

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jind.

(UID No. HR0302)”

CR No.5068 of 2025 6

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

objections raised by the respondents/judgment debtors were required to be

summarily rejected. It is submitted that Neelam Rani (petitioner) was

admittedly the landlord and the eviction order passed in favour of Neelam

Rani had attained finality and thus, any alleged subsequent purchase of a

part of the suit property by the respondents from the co-sharers was

irrelevant and cannot come in the way of the execution of the decree. It is

submitted that even the sale deed relied upon by the respondents was dated

28.08.2023 and was much subsequent to the passing of the decree and was

not executed by the petitioner and was only with respect to 1276/1046817

share out of the entire property measuring 41 kanals 2 marlas and thus, it is

apparent that even as per the case of the objectors, a minor share was

purchased by them from the whole property. It is submitted that it is a

matter of settled law that even if a tenant has purchased a share from the co-

sharers, then also, he cannot oppose the eviction proceedings filed by the

landlord and has to first surrender possession and then if permissible, seek

partition. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon the judgments of the coordinate Bench of this Court in

Civil Revision No.15 of 2018 decided on 09.01.2018 titled as Satish Kumar

Versus Dev Bala and others and Mohan Lal Versus Amrik Singh and others

reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 225, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and others Versus Bibi

CR No.5068 of 2025 7

Husn Bano & Ors. reported as 2005(5) SCC 492 and Jaspal Kaur Cheema

and Anr. Versus M/s Industrial Trade Links and Ors. reported as 2017(8)

SCC 592.

7. It is further submitted that even the property, which has been

allegedly purchased by the respondents does not correspond with the

property in question and at any rate, the said purchase is hit by the principle

of lis pendens and would not give any right to the purchaser of the property

so as to retain possession and to stall the eviction proceedings. It is

submitted that thus, even if the objections by the judgment debtors are taken

on its face value, then also, they deserve to be dismissed summarily and by

framing issues, the proceedings have been delayed endlessly.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has

submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to

be upheld. It is submitted that the respondents, who are tenants in the

premises, had subsequently purchased a part of the property vide registered

sale deed dated 28.08.2023 from the co-owners Ashu Kumar and Krishan

Mohan, who are the brothers of the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted

that even an agreement to sell was entered into between the husband of the

petitioner i.e. Parveen Kumar, Ashu Kumar and Rakesh Kumar-respondent

No.2/JD No.2 on 11.01.2020 and since the husband of petitioner

Parveen Kumar has backtracked from the said agreement, thus, the

respondents are in the process of filing a suit for specific performance. It is

CR No.5068 of 2025 8

submitted that in view of the subsequent events, the respondents have a

better title than the petitioner and thus, have a right to retain possession of

the property in question and thus, the Executing Court has rightly framed

the issues. It is further submitted that it is the case of the respondents-

objectors that on account of the agreement to sell dated 11.01.2020,

petitioner’s husband Parveen Kumar along with his brother Ashu Kumar

had received an amount of 50 lakhs from the respondents.

₹

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN REBUTTAL:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts

which have been submitted on behalf of the respondents are incorrect and

has further submitted that even if they are taken to be true on their face

value, then also, the respondents are not entitled to object to the execution

of the decree and cannot retain the possession of the premises in question.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book and finds that the revision petition is meritorious

and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is against law and

deserves to be set aside for the reasons stated hereinafter.

11. As is apparent from the facts stated hereinabove, the order of

eviction dated 17.02.2016 in the eviction petition filed by the petitioner

against the respondents has attained finality. It is not disputed that there is

no agreement, much less, sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of

the respondents and thus, the question of the right of the petitioner having

CR No.5068 of 2025 9

been purchased by the respondents in the suit property does not arise. It is a

matter of settled law that a landlord need not be the owner of the property.

In the present case, the fact that Neelam Rani was the landlord is not

disputed even before this Court and thus, the subsequent events which have

been highlighted on behalf of the respondents would not come in the way of

the petitioner from getting the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2016

executed against the respondents, who are admittedly tenants of the

petitioner.

12. It would also be relevant to mention that the application filed

for recalling the warrant of possession issued on 01.08.2024 and the

objections raised by the respondents/judgment debtors were required to be

summarily rejected in view of the order dated 01.08.2024 in which it was

specifically stated that since no objections had been filed, thus, no further

adjournment was required to be granted for the purpose of filing objections

and thereafter warrants of possession of the suit property were issued.

Admittedly, the said order dated 01.08.2024 which has been reproduced in

the earlier part of the present order had not been challenged or set aside.

The principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata also applies to orders

passed at different stages in a proceeding. Once the Executing Court vide

order dated 01.08.2024 had not given any further opportunity to the

respondents/judgment debtors to file objections and had issued warrants of

possession, then, the subsequent entertaining of the objections filed by the

respondents was in violation of the said principle.

CR No.5068 of 2025 10

13. Further the objections raised by the respondents are frivolous

and even if they are taken to be true on their face value, then also, they do

not call for stalling the execution of the judgment passed in favour of the

petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that they had purchased

1276/1046817 share in Khewat No.1838 out of total land measuring 41

kanals 2 marlas. The said purchase had been disputed by the petitioner in

her reply (Annexure P-5) to the effect that the said purchase was not with

respect to the rented property in question as the dimensions of the shop

mentioned in the said sale deed are contrary to the dimensions of the

demised premises. At any rate, even if the plea of the respondents to the

effect that they have become co-sharers in the property in question by virtue

of sale deed dated 28.08.2023, executed by two co-sharers i.e. Ashu Kumar

and Krishan Mohan, is taken to be true, then also, as per settled law, they

would not be entitled to retain possession of the premises in question. The

coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra) while

dealing with a similar case had observed that even in case half share in the

premises had been sold to the judgment debtors by one of the co-sharers

vide registered sale deed, then also, the tenancy right of the tenant could not

merge with the ownership rights. It was further observed that the purchasers

are under a legal obligation to first surrender the vacant possession of the

premises and then seek separate remedy of partition. In the present case, it is

not in dispute that there is no agreement or sale deed executed by the

present petitioner and thus, even if the plea of the respondents that they had

CR No.5068 of 2025 11

become co-sharers in the property is taken on its face value, then also, in

view of the law laid down in the abovesaid case, at best the respondents

could file a suit for partition of the property after surrendering the

possession, which the respondents had been enjoying as tenants of the

petitioner.

14. In the case of Mohan Lal (supra), a coordinate Bench of this

Court had taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of T. Lakshmipathi and others Versus Nithyananda

Reddy and others reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 117 in which case, a

joint property was owned by seven co-owners and five of the said co-

owners had sold their undivided shares to the tenants, yet it was observed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the tenants would acquire only a partial

interest in the property and their tenancy will not merge with ownership and

thus, they would be liable to be evicted being tenants even though they had

acquired partial interest in the property. In the case of Mohan Lal (supra),

the coordinate Bench had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sant Lal Jain Versus Avtar Singh reported as AIR 1985

SC 875 in which it was held that a licensee is bound to hand over the

possession to the landlord on termination of the licence and cannot retain

possession on the basis of title alleged to have been subsequently acquired

by him. The judgment in the case of Mohan Lal (supra) has been upheld by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.4111-4112/2008 decided on

17.01.2017. In the present case, it would be relevant to note that even the

CR No.5068 of 2025 12

eviction order has attained finality.

15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod

Kumar Jaiswal and others (supra) had observed as under:

“…….On taking an assignment from some of the co-owner

landlords, the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the

whole of the property do not become vested at the same

time in one person in the same right. Therefore, a lessee

who has taken assignment of the rights of a co-owner

lessor, cannot successfully raise the plea of determination

of tenancy on the ground of merger of his lessee's estate in

that of the estate of the landlord. It is, thus, clear that there

is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellants that in the case on hand, it should have been

held that the tenancy stood determined and the application

of the landlord for a direction to the tenant to deposit the

rent in arrears should have been dismissed. The position of

the appellants as tenants continue and they are bound to

comply with the requirements of the Rent Control Act

under which the order for deposit has been passed against

them. The High Court has rightly dismissed the revision.

35. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. Confirming the

order of the High Court the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.”

The law laid down in the abovesaid judgment also fully

supports the case of the petitioner.

16. In the case of Jaspal Kaur Cheema and another (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the principle of

CR No.5068 of 2025 13

estoppel, had observed as under:-

“11. This Section deals with estoppel of a tenant founded

upon contract between the tenant and his landlord. It

enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an

extension of principle that no person is allowed to

approbate and reprobate at the same time. The tenant who

has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord’s

title. In Mt. Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh and Ors.

AIR 1915 Privy Council 96, it was held that a tenant who

has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord’s

title, however, defective it may be, so long as he has not

openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord.

12. The principle of estoppel arising from contract of

tenancy is based upon the principle of law and justice that

a tenant who could not have got possession but for a

contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord,

should not be allowed to put his landlord in some

inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the

position that he got and any probable defect in the title of

his landlord. This Court in Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra v.

Stanley Parker Jones 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 38: 2006(1)

RCR (Rent) 253 : (2006) 3 SCC 91 has enumerated the

policy underlying Section 116 as follows:

“The underlying policy of Section 116 is that where a

person has been brought into possession as a tenant by the

landlord and if that tenant is permitted to question the title

of the landlord at the time of the settlement then that will

give rise to extreme confusion in the matter of relationship

of the landlord and tenant and so the equitable principle of

estoppel has been incorporated by the legislature in the

said section. The principle of estoppel arising from the

CR No.5068 of 2025 14

contract of tenancy is based upon a healthy and salutary

principle of law and justice that a tenant who could not

have got possession but for his contract of tenancy

admitting the right of the landlord should not be allowed

to launch his landlord in some inequitable situation taking

undue advantage of the possession that he got and any

probable defect in the title of his landlord. It is on account

of such a contract of tenancy and as a result of the tenant’s

entry into possession on the admission of the landlord’s

title that the principle of estoppel is attracted. Section 116

enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an

extension of the principle that no person is allowed to

approbate and reprobate at the same time.”

17. From the abovesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that

even in case the primary plea raised on behalf of the objectors with respect

to the purchase of a part of the premises from other co-sharers is taken on

face value, then also, the respondents-judgment debtors cannot hold on to

the possession of the property and cannot stall the execution proceedings.

Even the argument with respect to there being an agreement to sell dated

11.01.2020 executed by Parveen Kumar and Ashu Kumar in favour of

respondent No.2/JD No.2 regarding which respondent No.2 has allegedly

decided to file a suit for specific performance would not in any way call for

upholding of the impugned order. It is reiterated that the said agreement is

not with the petitioner, who is the admitted landlord and has an eviction

order in her favour. Further it is a matter of settled law that mere agreement

CR No.5068 of 2025 15

to sell in favour of a party does not give any right to the said party in the

property and the only right that the respondents have is to seek specific

performance of the said agreement. It is not disputed before this Court that

although the alleged agreement had been entered into in the year 2020 but

till date no suit for specific performance has been filed.

18. By virtue of the impugned order, the Executing Court has

framed three issues. As far as issue No.3 to the effect, “whether the decree

holder has executed the sale deed No.2971 dated 28.08.2023” is concerned,

it would be relevant to note that it was not the case of any of the parties that

the said sale deed was executed by the decree holder/petitioner, yet

strangely the said issue has been framed. Before this Court, it is not

disputed that the decree holder has not executed any agreement to sell in

favour of the judgment debtors and that the sale deed dated 28.08.2023 does

not contain the signatures of the petitioner. With respect to issue No.1, it

would be relevant to note that by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.08.2023,

as per the best case of the respondents-judgment debtors they have become

co-sharers in the property in question but it is not their case that they had

purchased the entire property, much less, from the present petitioner. As has

been detailed hereinabove, even in case the alleged sale deed is taken into

consideration, then also, the respondents would have no right to object to

the execution proceedings and thus, the question of framing issues and

seeking evidence on the same is a completely futile exercise and would

result in delaying the execution proceedings endlessly. Issue No.2 with

CR No.5068 of 2025 16

respect to recalling the warrant of possession would only arise if there was

some substance in issues No.1 and 3 and since there is no substance in

issues No.1 and 3, thus, framing of issue No.2 is also an exercise in futility.

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bikram Singh Versus Surjit

Singh and others reported as 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 422 had observed that it

is the duty of the Executing Court to execute the decree and merely because

frivolous objections are filed with a view to delay the decree, it is not

necessary for the Court to frame issues and grant opportunity to the parties

to lead evidence. It was further observed that even in case the objections

have been filed by a third party and not by the JD, then also, the issues

would not be framed by the Executing Court in a routine manner. In the

present case, the said principle of law has not been followed and the

Executing Court has framed the issues in a casual manner. In case the

impugned order is not set aside, the same would endlessly delay the

execution proceedings, which is against the mandate of law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Periyammal (Dead) through

LRs and Ors. Versus Rajamani and Anr. reported as 2025 SCC Online SC

507, in which the Executing Courts have been directed to dispose of the

execution proceedings within six months; and would also permit the

respondents to retain illegal possession of the property in question in spite

of a final eviction order/decree dated 17.02.2016 in favour of the petitioner.

19. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the

impugned order dated 07.05.2025 is set aside and the application dated

CR No.5068 of 2025 17

23.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) filed by the respondents/judgment debtors is

dismissed and the Executing Court is directed to proceed further in the case

to execute the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2016, in accordance with

law.

November 17

th

, 2025 (VIKAS BAHL)

Puneet JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes

Whether reportable: Yes