1. Heard Sri. P.K. Tripathi for the revisionists and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh for the respondents.
2. This revision has been filed against the order of Additional District Judge/Judge, Small Causes, dated 21.5.2016 by which he has directed for attachment of properties of revisionists for realisation of amount of Rs.29,39,205.94.
3. The revisionists are tenants in the premises belonging to the respondents. The respondents filed an application (registered as Case No.1 of 1987) under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,1972 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur for enhancement of rent. The application was contested by the revisionists. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 25.1.2010 enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs.4035/- per month from March, 1999. The revisionists challenged the aforesaid order in appeal (registered as Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 2010). The respondents also filed an appeal against the aforesaid order(registered as Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2010). Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Saharanpur, who by order dated 15.3.2012 dismissed Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2010 and partly allowed Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 2010. The appellate court has also quantified the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.17,56,716.30. Apart from payment of the aforesaid amount, the court has also directed the revisionists to pay house tax and water tax to the Nagar Nigam and if payment of the aforesaid amount is not made within thirty days from the date of order then interest at the rate of 9% per annum is also awarded. The revisionists challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No.23978 of 2012 but no interim order has been granted to the revisionists.
4. The respondents filed an execution application (registered as Execution Case No.41 of 2012) for execution of the appellate court decree dated 15.3.2012 before District Judge/Judge, Small Causes, Saharanpur. In this case the revisionists appeared and filed their objection. Apart from their other objections, the revisionists have raised an objection that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the execution case. After hearing the parties the court, by order dated 2.1.2016 has issued recovery certificate on the prescribed proforma. In spite of issuance of recovery certificate, the revisionists neither paid the amount to the respondents nor deposited it in the court. Therefore, another application i.e. Execution Case No.15 of 2016 was filed. By the impugned order dated 21.5.2016, the court has directed for attachment of the properties of the revisionists. Hence, this revision has been filed.
5. The counsel for the revisionists submits that Additional District Judge, Court no.3, Saharanpur has not been assigned jurisdiction of Judge, Small Causes. Thus, execution proceeding filed before him was not maintainable and the order passed in this respect is illegal and without jurisdiction. He also submits that the order, which is sought to be executed is still sub judice before this Court as such realisation of amount is not proper.
6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
7. Under Section 6 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Judges are appointed for exercising jurisdiction of Small Causes within the specified territory and under Section 8 of the Act , Additional Judges are also appointed by the State Government. State Government by Notification published in U.P. Gazette, Part 1, dated 7.10.72, page 5973 has delegated its power to High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for appointment of Judge, Small Causes Court. In continuation to the aforesaid notification, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by notification published in U.P. Gazette, dated 11.11.1972, page 3758 has conferred jurisdiction of Judge, Small Causes, upon all the District Judges and Additional District Judges. Thus, argument that Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur has not been assigned jurisdiction of Judge, Small Causes, is not liable to be accepted. In ground no.3 it has been mentioned that Execution Case No.41 of 2012 was filed before the District Judge and it was transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur by order dated 2.1.2016 where recovery certificate was issued. Subsequent application has been registered as Execution Case No.15 of 2016 before Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur.
8. By virtue of Section 17 of the Act, the procedures provided in CPC shall save in so far as is otherwise provided, have been applied. In view of
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
Section 38, CPC, the court, which passed the decree or the court to which decree has been transferred can execute the decree. In this case, the case has been transferred to the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur, who is competent to execute the decree. It is admitted that in the writ petition filed by the revisionists, no interim order has been granted. Thus, execution proceeding cannot be withheld. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision has no merit and it is dismissed.