Shamshad Ali vs Surender Singh And Ors

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010125702026
+ EX.F.A. 26/2026, CM APPL. 20116/2026 (Stay), CM APPL.
20117/2026 (Ex.) & CM APPL. 20118/2026 (Delay of 40 days
in Re-filing the appeal)

SHAMSHAD ALI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anees Ahmad Khan, Adv.

versus

SURENDER SINGH AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Appearance not given

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Appeal, Under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeks to challenge the Order dated
1
02.12.2025 passed by the learned SCJ-cum-RC, West Tis Hazari
2 3
Court, New Delhi in Ex. Petition 334/2025 by which the objections
filed by the Appellant herein came to be disposed of.
2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Appellant and,
with his able assistance, perused the relevant material placed on
record, including the Impugned Order. The learned Executing Court,
while dealing with the objections, has noticed the entire course of

1
Impugned Order
2
learned Executing Court
3
Execution Petition/Proceeding
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:38:55
EX.F.A. 26/2026 Page 1 of 7

litigation leading to the execution proceedings. For the sake of
completeness, the relevant findings of the learned Executing Court are
extracted herein below:
13. It is pertinent to mention, that the present execution pertains
to a petition that has been litigated till its hilt. The court hereby
proceeds with discussing in brief the gradual progression that took
place in the petition resulting in the present execution.
(1) Decree Court’s Findings.
14. Perusal of record shows, that the petition U/S 14(1)(e) DRC
Act was filed by the decree holder/petitioner in response to which
leave to defend was filed by respondent/JD, which was allowed by
the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 02.08.2024.
(2) Hon’ble High Court’s Findings.

15. The order granting leave to defend was challenged before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble High Court vide its
order dated 28.01.2025, allowed the eviction petition with the
observations as under:
“In the present case, the petitioner/landlord has been
able to prove a better title than the respondents/tenants. It
is the case of the petitioner/landlord that the original
owner of the subject premises was the father of the
petitioner/landlord and the father of the petitioner/landlord
had let out the subject premises to the father of the
respondents/tenants. Subsequently, the respondent/tenants
started paying a monthly rent of Rs.500/- to the
petitioner/landlord.

18. The Impugned Order has held in paragraph 28 that
a triable issue has been raised qua the relationship of
landlord-tenant. However, in paragraph 25, it has
simultaneously given a finding that the relationship of
landlord-tenant in the present case is not disputed. The
relevant extract of the Impugned Order is reproduced
below:
“25. The first requirement to be proved by the
petitioner is the existence of landlord-tenant
relationship. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2
SCC 814; Pal Sigh v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC
444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16;
Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and Mohinder Prasad
Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it was
held that the landlord, even if not the absolute
owner, is at least one of the co-owner, is entitled to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:38:55
EX.F.A. 26/2026 Page 2 of 7

maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the
Act. In the present case, the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties is not
disputed.

xxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx

28. The petitioner in his counter affidavit was
supposed to explain the circumstances in which the
receipts were executed. The petitioner simply stated
that the receipt are forged and fabricated. The
petitioner further stated that if the receipt were
correct, then why the respondents deposited rent in
the year 2004. The respondents have also failed to
give any explanation for the same. To my mind, the
respondents have been successful in raising a
triable issue concerning the ownership of the suit
property. Tnable issue also arises regarding the
landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
18.1 Thus , the Impugned Order cannot be sustained.”

(2) Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Findings.

16. Further, the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated
28.01.2025 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India and vide its order dated 21.05.2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India dismissed the SLP with following directions:

“2........ In the facts and circumstances, we grant time to
vacate the suit property up to 31.10.2025, subject to
payment of arrears of rent within one month and regular
rent on month to month basis. It is directed that the
petitioner shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession
of the premises to the respondent on or before 31.10.2025
and shall not part with or create third party right therein. A
usual undertaking shall be filed within a period of three
weeks from today before the Registrar (Judicial), High
Court of Delhi. Non-filing of the undertaking shall give a
cause of landlord to execute the decree and the time for
vacation as specified above shall not have any bearing to
the execution proceedings. Defiance of the above terms, if
any, may be treated as non-compliance of the order of this
court”

17.In the light of the orders recapitulated as above, this court finds
no hesitation in deducing, that the objections raised vide instant
application already stands adjudicated and decided by High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:38:55
EX.F.A. 26/2026 Page 3 of 7

as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Further, court deems it fit to place reliance on the judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as “Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs.
Rakesh Jain & Anr” dated 19.04.2018, whereby it was held as
under:
“19) From a perusal of lease deed dated 15.11.1975, we
find that the suit premises was let out jointly to late Shri
Ishwar Chand Jain and Shri Ramesh Chand Jain, son of
late Shri Ishwar Chand Jain. Thus, both of them were joint
tenants and upon the death of Shri Ishwar Chand Jain,
Respondent No. 1 inherited the tenancy as joint tenant
only. Further, in view of a catena of decisions of this
Court on the subject as well as the principles laid down in
H.C. Pandey (supra), we are of the opinion that the High
Court erred in holding that the decisions relied upon by
learned senior counsel for the appellant are not applicable
to the facts of the present case on the premise that in the
given case itself the validity and binding nature of the
notice given to one of the legal representatives of the
deceased tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of
property Act, 1882 on other legal representatives was
determined only on the basis of the fact that they hold the
tenancy as joint tenants and notice given to one means
notice given to all. Conclusion:-
20) We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey
(supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant
dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and
occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the
joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all
legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are
occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the
landlord to implead either of those persons who are
occupying the property, as party. There may be a case
where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of
deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are
in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose
of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against
one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint
tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the
Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a
tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of
the tenants on this count must fail.
21) Even otherwise, the intervention at this belated stage
of execution proceedings, in the fact and circumstances of
the case, seems to be a deliberate attempt to nullify the
decree passed in favour of the appellant herein as when
Respondent No.1 filed objections under Section 47 Order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:38:55
EX.F.A. 26/2026 Page 4 of 7

XXI of the Code, he claimed to be in possession of the suit
premises, however, he failed to produce any evidence
except two rent receipts for the months of December, 1993
and January 1994 that too when the Respondent No. 1 in
his objection petition filed in the execution proceedings of
the eviction decree has himself admitted that the there
exists a dispute between him and Respondent No. 2 and
they had parted their ways.

18. In light of the reliance placed as above, the objection raised
by the objector vide the instant application is sans merit as it is
categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that the
impleadment of all the LRs is not a mandatory requirement and the
ratio decidendi that is applicable to one of the LRs/tenant is also
applicable to all of them. Therefore, in the light of the above, the
present objections stands dismissed being devoid of merits as
admittedly objector is a brother of the JD’s and is claiming himself
to be one of the tenants, so even if he is not made a party or
impleaded as one of the LR, the finding qua other tenants/LRs will
be equally applicable to him.
19. Therefore, as an epilogue to the above, let fresh warrants of
possession be issued for 20.12.2025 against the JD and in favour of
the DH in respect of suit property i.e. Plot No.41, Gali No.30,
New Rohtak Road, Daya Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-
110005, more specifically shown in the site plan annexed with
the petition, as per the certified copy of the site plan on filing of
PF. Further, Bailiff is directed to remove all hurdles including lock,
doors etc. in order to execute present warrants of possession
Further, Bailiff is directed to take all other necessary auxiliary
steps for execution of present warrants of possession. DH shall file
an affidavit to the effect that there is no stay or appeal pending on
the execution of the eviction order.

20.Concerned SHO is directed to provide police aid and assistance
including lady police officer, if required, to the Bailiff for
execution of warrant of possession.”

3. Having noticed the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Executing Court proceeded to
consider the objections preferred by the Appellant. It concluded that
the objections sought to reopen issues which had already been
adjudicated upon in the proceedings culminating in the Order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:38:55
EX.F.A. 26/2026 Page 5 of 7

4. The learned Executing Court further placed reliance upon the
Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli v.
Rakesh Jain & Anr. , dated 19.04.2018, wherein the position with
respect to the rights of joint tenants and the binding effect of an
eviction order upon the legal heirs of a deceased tenant was also
rightly considered.
5. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case, the
learned Executing Court held that the objections raised by the
Appellant were devoid of merit, observing, inter alia , that the
Appellant, being the brother of the Judgement Debtors and claiming
himself to be one of the tenants, could not seek to avoid the effect of
the findings rendered against the other tenants/legal heirs merely on
the ground that he had not been separately impleaded. The objections
were accordingly dismissed.
6. The learned Executing Court thereafter directed issuance of
fresh Warrants of Possession in respect of the suit premises and
further directed the Bailiff to take all necessary steps for execution
thereof, including removal of any obstruction, locks or doors, as may
be necessary. Police assistance was also directed to be provided for
execution of the Warrants of Possession.
7. It is evident from the aforesaid sequence of events that the
dispute in respect of the Subject premises has already travelled
through the adjudicatory hierarchy and culminated in the Order dated
21.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while dismissing the challenge, expressly granted
time to vacate the Subject premises only up to 31.10.2025 and
directed that peaceful and vacant possession be handed over to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:38:55
EX.F.A. 26/2026 Page 6 of 7

Respondent on or before the said date.
8. In these circumstances, the present Appeal, insofar as it seeks to
raise objections which would have the effect of reopening or
substantially interfering with the rights crystallized pursuant to the
Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be sustained. The
Appellant cannot, in execution proceedings, seek to re-agitate matters
which have already travelled through the appropriate adjudicatory fora
and have culminated in a binding Order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
9. The execution proceedings, therefore, cannot be permitted to
become a vehicle for reopening the decree or for circumventing the
binding effect of the orders passed in the substantive proceedings. The
scope of the present proceedings is consequently limited to execution
of the decree in accordance with the orders which have already
attained finality.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the present
Appeal. The Impugned Order dated 02.12.2025 does not warrant
interference. The present Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. The present Appeal, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in aforementioned terms.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/rk/DJ

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:38:55
EX.F.A. 26/2026 Page 7 of 7