IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.442/2025 Date of Decision: 04th August, 2025. Jagdish Chand Joshi (deceased) through Lrs. .....Petitioners Versus Desh Bandhu (deceased) through LRs. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Present petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, Shimla, HP in Execution Petition No. 29-10 of 2016, titled Desh Bandhu V/s Jagdish Chand Joshi whereby objections filed by the petitioners/Judgement Debtors were rejected and against order dated 21.11.2023 whereby an application under section 151 CPC for staying of execution petition was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge Shimla. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the petition, documents appended thereto and examined the impugned orders. 3. The respondents, who are the Decree Holders, filed an Execution Petition against the petitioners (Judgment Debtors) seeking enforcement of an eviction order passed by the Learned Rent Controller, Shimla, on 29.04.2016. The eviction was granted on the grounds of rebuilding the property, personal Bonafide requirement, and arrears of rent. This order was later affirmed by the Learned Appellate Authority on 02.11.2016. The petitioners had also challenged the eviction decree before the High Court by filing a revision petition which they later withdrew. 4. During the pendency of the Execution Petition, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the original tenant, Jagdish Chand Joshi (deceased during the eviction proceedings) claimed that they had no prior knowledge of either the rent petition or the execution proceedings. They filed objections before the Learned Executing Court, Shimla, but these were dismissed on 3 19.07.2025. The petitioners argue that the Executing Court committed serious irregularities by failing to verify crucial details such as the Khasra Number or House Number of the disputed property and passed the order in a mechanical manner without proper scrutiny. They contend that this oversight renders the order legally unsustainable and seek its quashing. 5. Additionally, the petitioners had earlier filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking a stay on the execution proceedings, but this too was dismissed by the Learned Civil Judge on 21.11.2023. 6. They now urge this Court to set aside the Executing Court’s order dated 19.07.2025, arguing that it was passed without due consideration of the facts and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners have annexed relevant documents, including the Execution Petition (Annexure P-1), their objections and the impugned order (Annexure P-2/P- 3), and their stay application along with its dismissal order (Annexure P-4) for the Court’s perusal. 4 7. In their application under section 151 CPC, the grounds taken by the then-applicants/present- petitioners for staying the execution petition, were that Decree holders/present respondents had obtained their decree through mis-representation of facts and that the decree holders were neither owners of the said premises nor entered as tenant in the revenue record at the time of filing of the rent petition. 8. There is a challenge to two orders by one petition, besides there is a belated challenge to the order dated 21.11.2023, Irrespective of the same in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. When there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff-landlord has sought defendant’s-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. 5 9. In this respect, the reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Kanaklata Das & Ors. vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 352. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 11.1 First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. 11.2 Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff-landlord has sought defendant’s-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds. 11.3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See-Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal) 6 11.4 Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee). 11.5 Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. (See-Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue). 10. Other than the aforesaid, the definition of "landlord" under Section 2(d) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 provides a comprehensive legal meaning that extends beyond conventional ownership. The statutory definition reads as under:- "(d) 'landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or 7 as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, a specified landlord, and every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord." 11. In view of the same, the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties stood conclusively and rightly established by the Rent Controller's eviction order dated 29.04.2016 and its subsequent affirmation by the Appellate Court on 02.11.2016. 12. The petitioners' application under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of execution was therefore untenable. The Civil Judge rightly dismissed it on 21.11.2023, as execution of a valid decree cannot be stayed in the absence of demonstrated jurisdictional errors or substantive legal infirmities. No exceptional circumstances exist to warrant interference with the same. 13. In so far as the dismissal of the objections filed in the execution petition are concerned, suffice it to say the inordinate delay, which is universally caused throughout India in the execution of a decree, has 8 been a cause of concern. The execution proceedings which are supposed to be a handmaid of justice and subserve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice. 14. It is a settled legal principle that the executing court can never go behind the decree unless the court’s order is itself without jurisdiction. The exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Code is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole i.e. if it is found that the same is void ab initio and a nullity, apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of execution under law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its passing. 15. Keeping in view the above stated principles order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, Shimla, whereby objections filed by the petitioners/Judgement Debtors were rejected is upheld. 9 16. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 17. Besides the aforesaid, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 18. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, Shimla, HP as well as order 10 dated 21.11.2023. passed by the Ld. Civil Judge Shimla H.P., and hence no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out, in the case at hand. 19. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 04th August, 2025 (TB/Gaurav Rawat)