A can evict C as per court orders
2) C has to comply with court orders
3) seek return of his security deposit from B
Execution for Eviction of Tenant not party to the civil suit
INTERESTING ONE Party A won the case in supreme court after 30 years (1990) and the landlord(Party B) was decreed to give vacant possession of the suit premises. However, 20 years ago (2000) the property was leased with registered lease agreement to a tenant(Party C), who had no prior information of the pending litigation. The possession still resides with Party C but Party A has filed for eviction vide execution of decree.... 1) Can Party A evict Party C, though the latter is not party to the original civil suit ? 2) What alternatives are available to Party C ? [deleted] Feel free to connect for further information
Asked 6 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
10 Answers
FYI The Title of the execution filed is A vs B through legal heirs. But Party A has included Party C in execution filed, even though they are not heirs of B nor were a party to original civil suit. What is best course to safeguard against eviction for Party C, is there any time limitation applicable and whether appeal should be made in SC? Thanking you in advance
Asked 6 years ago
C should take out application to set aside eviction decree passed by SC as he has not been made party to the suit .
take the plea that C is formal , proper and necessary party to the suit
3) it is necessary to peruse SC orders , pleadings to advice further
your remedy is to file an obstructionist notice under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC
You cannot include C in the execution application as a party respondent
you will have to file a separate obstructionist application as above against C
C can then give all the evidence which he wishes to rely on in support of his claim that he is entitled to possession of the property
Order XXI Rule 97 - Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property
97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property
(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.
1[(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.]
Dear Sir,
After amendment of CPC all the disputes shall be decided by executing court. Mere tenancy without lock period, the tenant has not rights to stay in the property. Executing a decree is 12 years from its final adjudication. The tenant can take his appropriate inconveniences before the executing court and bargain for more time to vacate.
Party A can evict C with the help of SC orders and they (C) had to comply the order, and make any claim from B if any losses/damages were occurred to C,
making C party in execution is not needed at all.
C to safeguard his interest can move to SC for setting aside the said decree passed in favor of A with the claim that he was one of the necessary party to the suit.
1. In the execution proceeding for the purpose of eviction of the tenant, the sub tenant can also be evicted for which no separate legal proceeding is to be initiated.
2. The party C though raise a dispute by filing a petition under order 21 rule 97 of CPC in the execution proceeding to determine the issue agitated by C.
3. No person who was not a arty to the suit can be added in the execution case. This is a sheer irregularity and it would damaged the case of A.
Yes party C can be evicted as per the supreme court order. Party she needs to approach Supreme Court for the stay.
What party A was doing till now, execution is barred by limitation.
Party A has got a decree in his favor hence he can file an execution petition for executing the decree even if there was a tenant existing. Nothing prevented the tenant to get himself impleaded in the case when it was pending, hence the decree holder cannot be blamed for this lapse of party C.
Party C can approach court on the basis of his registered lease agreement for any relief though it is only time consuming process since it is not maintainable.
The party C remained silent all through the pendency of the litigation even though he was aware of the same. Thus he may not have any ground to defend his interest except to drag on the issue for some more time.