Shri Moti Ram, Dhobi vs Lajpat Rai and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the executing court dated 9th April, 1981, whereby the objections filed on behalf of the Petitioner Moti Ram who had stood surety for the tenant Girdhari Lal were dismissed.

Lajpat Rai, landlord/decree-holder, filed ejectment application which was allowed by the Rent Controller. In appeal filed by the tenant stay was granted subject to security for payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,075/-. The Petitioner Moti Ram stood surety for payment of the said amount on behalf of the tenant. Ultimately; the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed. In execution, the landlord/ decree-holder sought recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,075/- from Moti Ram, Petitioner, being the surety. Objections were filed thereto that no such recovery could be made from him in execution of the ejectment order. The said objections were dismissed by the executing court.

The order of the Appellate Authority granting the stay was in the following terms:

In view of the factum that the rate of rent is under assail as also the validity of the tender in this appeal, it would not be just and proper to order the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs 50/- per month Any how, to safeguard the interest of the landlord the tenant is directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller undertaking to pay the arrears as decided by this Authority in appeal. He is directed to furnish the requisite security within 15 days, failing which the stay shall stand vacated.

It was in pursuance of this order that the Petitioner furnished surety bonds Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that under the Rent Restriction Act, only the order of ejectment was executable, and this order, as such, could not be executed. The remedy of the landlord if any, was to file a separate suit on the basis of the surety bonds, furnished by his client. In support of his contention, he referred to The Central Board of Industries & Commerce, etc. v. Sham Lal Gupta 1976 R. C. R. 224. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the landlord/Respondent submitted that the arrears of rent could be recovered on the basis of the surety bond furnisned by Moti Ram, Petitioner, as any order passed in appeal u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was executable as a decree of the Civil Court In support of his contention he referred to Arjan Lal v. Parbash Chander (1968) 70 P. L. R. 237 and Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta,

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition Section 17 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act reads as under:

"Every order made u/s 10 or sec 13 and every order passed on appeal u/s 15 shall be executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of that court," It is no more disputed that the stay order was passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, and the Petitioner filed the surety bond in pursuance of the order passed u/s 15(2) of the Act. That being so, in view of the provisions of Section 17 reproduced above, every order passed on appeal u/s 15 could be executed by a Civil Court. In para 8 of the report, re: 1976 R C R 224 (Supra) it was observed:

A reference to sec 36(2) of the Act would indicate the purposes for which it is a Civil Court. Section 42 indicates that the order that may be made by the Controller or on appeal by the Tribunal is executable by the Controller as a decree by a Civil Court, and for this purpose the Controller will have all the powers of a Civil Court

In any case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the order of the executing court so as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Once it is held that the order passed by the Appellate Authority could be executed as a decree of the Civil Court, sec 145 of the CPC provides for enforcement of liability of the surety and under that provision, the surety could be made liable to make payment of the amount for which he stood surety as such Under these circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.