( 2025:HHC:8242 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 15 of 2025 Date of decision: 20th March, 2025 Rani …Petitioner. Versus Surender Kaur & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner. Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Present Revision Petition has been preferred by petitioner/tenant/Judgment Debtor against the landlords/Decree Holders for setting aside the order dated 19th February, 2025 passed by the Rent Controller, Court No.3, Shimla in Execution Petition No. 59 of 2021 whereby objections filed by petitioner/Judgment Debtor have been rejected. 2 Rent Petition No. 189/2 of 2015/2012 preferred by Decree Holders for eviction of petitioner/Judgment Debtor was allowed by the Rent Controller on 30th May, 2016. 2 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) 3 Rent Appeal No. 23-S/14 of 2017 filed by petitioner/Judgment Debtor was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Shimla on 30th November, 2017. 4 Petitioner/Judgment debtor had filed Civil Revision No.15 of 2018 in this High Court assailing the eviction order passed by Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5 During pendency of Civil Revision in the High Court, matter was amicably settled between the parties on the basis of undertaking given on behalf of petitioner/Judgment Debtor to pay arrears of rent, if any, within a period of two months, and for future, commencing from 1.9.2018 till the time premises will be retained, to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month and finally to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of shop, in reference, on or before 28th February, 2021. 6 Statement of Ashish Kumar son of Rani (present petitioner/Judgment Debtor) was recorded on oath in this regard in the Court wherein in the opening line, Ashish Kumar had stated that he was authorized to make statement on behalf of Smt. Rani who was his mother. At that time, petitioner/Judgment Debtor was duly represented by an Advocate, who had also identified Ashish as son of petitioner/Judgment Debtor on the statement recorded in the Court. 7 Respondents/Decree Holders have filed an Execution Petition No. 59 of 2021 in November, 2021 before the Rent Controller, Court No.3, Shimla for issuing warrant of possession qua the premises in 3 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) reference and also for issuance of warrant of attachment of movable and immovable property of Judgment Debtor as well as sending the Judgment Debtor into civil imprisonment. 8 Petitioner/Judgment Debtor to oppose the Execution Petition had filed objections stating therein that after passing of judgment/order sought to be executed, landlords/Decree Holders had entered into fresh oral agreement with Judgment Debtor and had let out premises on fresh terms for rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and said rent was deposited by Judgment Debtor in the Bank Account of Decree Holder and was also paid part in cash. 9 It is also apt to record that original tenant was Naresh Kumar son of Babu Lal. However, after his death his wife Rani was sued by landlords. During pendency of Execution Petition, other legal representatives of Naresh Kumar had also filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC which was dismissed uptil the Supreme Court. 10 In objections petition, it was also stated that earlier Execution Petition qua same relief was dismissed in default and thus, fresh Execution Petition was not maintainable and in view of subsequent events, the order/judgment, sought to be executed, cannot be executed and implemented. 11 In Revision Petition, at one hand, it has been stated that Ashish Kumar one of the sons of petitioner/Judgment Debtor Rani Devi had given an undertaking in terms of compromise recorded in Civil 4 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) Revision No. 15 of 2018 but without having much knowledge of facts and any authority to make any such statement before the Court as neither he was party nor holding power of attorney on behalf of petitioner/Judgment Debtor. Further that Ashish Kumar never disclosed the said compromise to any of other successors of deceased Naresh Kumar including the petitioner and he had also entered into an oral agreement with landlords without apprising the same to petitioner or other legal heirs whereby he had agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month rent qua demised premises. According to petitioner, she came to know about complete facts on receiving notice in Execution Petition. 12 It has also been contended on behalf of petitioner/Judgment Debtor that National Highway Authority of India has issued a general Notice dated Nil informing all those persons, who have encroached upon the National Highway in any manner to vacate/remove such unauthorized possession within three days i.e. from 12.5.2023 to 14.5.2023 failing which unauthorized possession shall be removed forcibly. 13 It has been contended that a collective CWP No. 4243 of 2023 titled Vinod Nayar and others vs. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) was filed in this Court against notice of NHAI wherein one of sons of the petitioner namely Ashish, on whose statement made on behalf of petitioner in Civil Revision No.15 of 2018, petitioner is being evicted, was also petitioner No.10, and one of the landlords namely 5 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) Surender Kaur was impleaded as respondent No.11 in the said Writ Petition. 14 It is claimed that vide order dated 30.7.2023 passed in CWP No. 4243 of 2023 possession of the petitioner was protected by the Division Bench of this High Court and such protection was made absolute on 25th September, 2023 and Writ Petition was disposed of. Copy of the petition has been placed on record. It is apt to record that in this petition also, tenant/Judgment Debtor is admitting the status of respondents as landlords. 15 It has been further contended that landlords were well aware about the fact that they are not owners of premises in reference and thus, are not having right, title or interest therein, and had continuously received the rent from the petitioner without filing any document along with petition to identify the property. 16 In aforesaid facts, it has been contended that impugned order dated 19.2.2025 has been passed ignoring the true facts and subsequent events having the impact on Execution Petition by rendering the order/judgment passed by the Rent Controller/Appellate Authority unexecutable. 17 According to petitioner, all aforesaid facts were intended to brought on record before the Rent Controller but Rent Controller did not allow the prayer of petitioner and dismissed the objections filed by her vide impugned order dated 19th February, 2025. 6 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) 18 Plea of petitioner, that after death of Naresh Kumar, original tenant, his all Class-I legal heirs have inherited the tenancy in succession and were entitled to be treated as tenants collectively and proceedings for eviction should have been initiated against all legal heirs/representatives of deceased Naresh Kumar, is not sustainable because of specific provisions contained in Explanation-I of Section 2(j) of H.P. Urban Rent Controle Act, 1987 wherein definition of tenant along with Explanation(s) has been provided as under:- “2(j) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a residential or non-residential building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy, a deserted wife of a tenant who has been or is entitled to be in occupation of the matrimonial home or tenanted premises of husband, a divorced wife of a tenant who has a decree of divorce in which the right of residence in the matrimonial home or tenanted premises has been incorporated as one of the conditions of the decree of divorce and in the event of the death of such person such of his heirs as are mentioned in Schedule-I to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him or carrying on business in the premises at the time of his death, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified, respectively in Explanation-I and Explanation-II to this clause, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, except with the written consent of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or 7 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) leased by a Municipal Corporation or a Municipal Council or a Nagar Panchayat or a Cantonment Board; Explanation-I.- The order of succession in the event of death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy shall be as follows:— (a) firstly, his surviving spouse; (b) secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no surviving spouse, or if the surviving spouse did not ordinarily live with the deceased persons as a member of his family upto the date of his death; (c) thirdly, his parent(s), if there is no surviving spouse, son or daughter of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person upto the date of his death; and (d) fourthly, his daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre- deceased son, if there is no surviving spouse, son, daughter or parent(s) of the deceased person or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter or parent(s), or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person upto the date of his death: Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a member of his family upto the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant: Provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve upon a successor in case he or his spouse or any of 8 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the urban area in relation to the premises let. Explanation-II.- The right of every successor, referred to in Explanation-I, to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor, devolve on any of his heirs; and.]” 19 From aforesaid provisions, it is quite clear that in the event of death of a person/tenant continuing in possession his tenancy shall be firstly devolve upon his surviving spouse, and in absence of first, secondly upon his son and daughter or both if there is no surviving spouse or if the surviving spouse did not ordinarily live with the deceased person as a member of his family upto the date of his death; thirdly in absence of first and second, on parents and in absence of first, second and third, fourthly on daughter-in-law etc. Explanations clearly provide order of succession of tenancy. In the present case, petitioner Rani Devi was alive and living with her husband upto the date of his death and therefore, she was only entitled for succession of tenancy and others legal heirs, mentioned in Clauses (b) (c) and (d) of Explanation-I, were not entitled for succession of tenancy of Naresh Kumar. As per Explanation-II, right of every successor referred to in Explanation-I, shall be personal to him and on the death of said successor tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs. In view of unambiguous provisions of 9 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) Rent Act plea, regarding necessity of impleading all legal heirs of Naresh Kumar, is not sustainable. 20 Even otherwise, for dismissal of claim of other legal heirs uptil the Supreme Court, asserting/claiming right in the tenanted premises by or on behalf of other legal heirs, is not sustainable. 21 At one hand, petitioner is taking the plea that her son Ashish Kumar was not having any authority to make statement on her behalf in the Court in Civil Revision No. 15 of 2018 and he had also acted unauthorizedly by entering into the oral agreement with landlords and agreeing to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as rent, but on the other hand, petitioner is also trying to seek benefit of interim orders which were made absolute at the time of final decision of CWP No. 4243 of 2023 by stating that the said Ashish, her son, is petitioner No.10 in the said petition and one of the landlords is respondent No.11. 22 From the memo of parties of CWP No. 4243 of 2023, it is apparent that respondent No.11 Surender Kaur has been made a party as landlady of petitioner Nos. 10 and 15. Evidently, 10th petitioner is Ashish Kumar son of Rani who had entered into the compromise with landlord in Civil Revision Petition No.15 of 2018 with undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 28th February, 2021. 23 Petitioner is blowing hot and cold in the same breath and therefore, plea taken to avoid consequences of compromise arrived at in Civil Revision No. 15 of 2018 is also not tenable. 10 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) 24 Plea of tenant, that respondents are not landlords and are not entitled to receive the rent from tenant by alleging that they are not owners of the premises in reference but ownership is with the Government which has now been transferred to National Highway Authority of India, is also not sustainable because in objections preferred by petitioner/Judgment Debtor it has also been categorically stated that she has entered into fresh oral agreement with landlords after passing of order and judgment sought to be executed and had agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month. In original eviction proceedings, initiated by filing Rent Petition No. 189/2 of 2015/12, no such objection was ever taken by petitioner. As the petitioner/Judgment Debtor is claiming an oral agreement with landlords treating them as landlords and also in eviction proceedings not disputing the status of Decree Holder as landlord, this plea disputing the status of landlord is not available to petitioner. 25 Section 122 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (old corresponding Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act), reads as under:- “122. Estoppel of tenant and of license of person in possession- No tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny 11 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.” 26 In view of aforesaid provisions in given facts of the case, petitioner/Judgment Debtor is not entitled to raise objections with regard to status and relation of landlord and tenant. 27 It is also apt to record that Ashish Kumar, while entering into the compromise with landlords in Civil Revision No.15 of 2018, had categorically stated that he was authorized to make statement on behalf of Smt. Rani who was his mother and he was duly identified and represented by counsel engaged by petitioner/tenant. 28 There is nothing on record that at any point of time, petitioner/Judgment Debtor had taken any action against her son Ashish Kumar or counsel representing him, rather, plea taken in objections with respect to oral agreement with landlords and also for claiming right in sequel to order passed by Court in CWP No. 4243 of 2023 wherein Ashish Kumar was petitioner No.10, it is apparent that Ashish Kumar in Civil Revision No. 15 of 2018 as well as in CWP No. 4243 of 2023 was acting under instructions and on behalf of petitioner/Judgment Debtor and therefore, orders passed by Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties after recording statement of Ashish Kumar on oath is definitely executable. 29 Plea that petitioner has been directed by the National Highway Authority of India to vacate the premises in reference is also not 12 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) tenable as the notice issued by National Highway Authority of India placed on record as Annexure P-4 does not depict the identification of property or the persons in authorized possession on National Highway but it is a general notice to all who have unauthorized possession on National Highway. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the land referred in notice with land/premises in reference in present case, whereas in Execution Petition, identification of property has been duly given in para 9(a) of the application wherein execution of decree has been prayed by issuing warrant of possession qua premises consisting of one shop namely Jhatka Meat Shop measuring 10’x12’ located in second storey of Sardar Bir Singh House Dhalli, Shimla. Therefore, plea of Judgment Debtor with respect to non-identification of premises in question is also not tenable. 30 Interim protection granted and affirmed in CWP No. 4243 of 2023 vide orders dated 3.7.2023 and 25.9.2023 is also no help to petitioner/Judgment Debtor in present matter as in these orders Tehsildar (Rural) Shimla was directed to ascertain the ownership of land/structure by way of demarcation pursuant to order dated 30.5.2023 passed in CWP No. 3382 of 2023, and eviction by National Highway Authority of India was restrained without following the process of law with direction that petitioner shall not be forcibly evicted from subject property. At the time of final disposal, petition was disposed of with direction that respondent 13 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) No.1 shall not be forcibly evicted the petitioner from the property subject matter of petition, without following the due process of law. 31 From material on record including the aforesaid orders, it is nowhere pleaded or admitted that premises in reference in rent petition and CWP No. 4243 of 2023 was one and same. Even if it is one and the same, then also there is no restrained order against Decree Holders/landlords. Otherwise also, eviction of petitioner by following due process of law has not been restrained. Therefore, dispossession of petitioner from he premises in reference in Execution Petition, in consonance with law, has not been restrained by any Court at any point of time. 32 It is also relevant to record that jamabandi placed on record pertains to Khasra No. 1914 which is in possession of Public Works Department as Gair Mumkin Sadak which means that notice issued by National Highway Authority of India was with respect to Khasra No. 1914 having road thereon but not related to premises tenanted by Decree Holder to the tenant or her predecessor-in-interest. 33 In Civil Writ Petition also, it was contended that for the purpose of eviction, landlords have already initiated eviction proceedings against their respective tenants under Rent Act and they are taking unwarranted advantage of notice issued by National Highway Authority of India. Therefore, in writ petition also relation of landlord and tenant has been admitted. 14 ( 2025:HHC:8242 ) 34 In view of contradictory stand taken by petitioner at various stages, this petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. However, taking a lenient view no cost is being imposed. 35 In view of above discussion and facts and circumstances, after going through aforesaid order dated 19th February, 2025, I do not find any merit in petition. Accordingly petition is dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of in the same terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 3rd March, 2025 Judge. (MS)