Supreme Court: A special leave petition was filed before a Division Bench comprising of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ. against the judgment of H.P. High Court in a landlord-tenant dispute. The Hon’ble Bench found the judgment impugned to be incomprehensible and therefore set aside the judgment.
The High Court had allowed a petition filed by the tenant against the order of Executing Court whereby it had allowed the landlord’s execution petition. Earlier, the landlord had brought an eviction suit against the tenant for defaulting the payment of rent. Pursuant to which, the trial court had passed a decree in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Subsequently, the tenant paid the rent to the landlord and he acquiesced thereby not evicting the tenant. However, thereafter, the landlord filed the said execution petition before the Executing Court for execution of the decree passed by the trial court. The Executing Court allowed the petition. The tenant preferred a revision petition, against the said order of the Executing Court, before the High Court which was allowed and the Executing Court was directed to decide the execution petition afresh. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Few excerpts from the order passed by the High Court in Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Sarla Sood, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 2699 are:–
“… apposite objections preferred therebefore by the JD/tenant manifesting therein qua the decree put to execution therebefore not warranting recording of affirmative orders thereon, its standing fully satisfied, standing stained with a vice arising from the factum of its palpably slighting the factum of unfoldments occurring in the relevant record existing therebefore comprised in the testification …”
“… the acquiescence qua the relevant facet made by the GPA of the landlord in rent petition which stood instituted subsequent to the pronouncement made in rent petition holding bespeakings therein of the tenant making the relevant liquidation holds the sequel of the landlord accepting the attornment of rent to him by the tenant/JD other than the statutory mode for its deposit. ”
“… it has to be concluded of the landlord by procrastinating the execution of the executable decree rendered on 6.11.1999 in Rent Petition No. 1-2 of 1996 upto 29.09.2005 whereat a pronouncement in rent petition also occurred his also thereupon renewing the tenancy qua the relevant premises vis-a-vis the JD.”
The Supreme Court, on hearing the counsel, was of the considered and categorical opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. The reason being, in the words of the Court itself, it was not possible to comprehend the contents of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The order was therefore set aside and the matter sent back to the High Court for de novo consideration on merits. [Sarla Sood v. Pawan Kumar Sharma,2017 SCC OnLine SC 1673, dated 11-04-2017]
