Jaipur Tenant’s Bid To Halt Eviction Execution Fails As Rajasthan HC Says Later Transfer Did Not By Itself Void Proceedings

The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an eviction decree passed by Rent Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metro First, while his appeal against that decree was pending. The respondents instituted execution proceedings before Rent Tribunal No. 2, which issued notice and later a recovery warrant.

The petitioner objected under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC, arguing that Rent Tribunal No. 2 lacked jurisdiction because the decree had not been transferred in accordance with Sections 37–39 and Order XXI Rule 6 CPC. A transfer certificate was subsequently issued and received by the Tribunal. The Executing Tribunal rejected the objections, prompting this writ petition under Article 227.

Section 13(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 empowers the State Government to regulate distribution of business among Rent Tribunals; Section 20 provides for execution of Rent Tribunal orders; and Section 21(3) provides that Tribunals are not bound by the CPC and may regulate their own procedure, subject to the Act and Rules.

Section 20(4) requires execution to be conducted summarily.

Accordingly, CPC provisions governing transfer of decrees cannot be mechanically applied as though the CPC fully governs Rent Tribunal proceedings; the relevant question is whether the executing Tribunal has authority under the applicable statutory and administrative arrangements.

An executing court generally cannot go behind the decree, save where it is a nullity for inherent want of jurisdiction (Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Private Limited v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan, (2017) 5 SCC 371; Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule, (2004) 8 SCC 706).

Article 227 interference is supervisory and is warranted for patent jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest injustice, not merely to substitute the High Court’s view (Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329; Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181).

The Court held that the Act establishes an independent procedural framework and that the petitioner had identified no provision requiring every transfer or allocation of execution between competent Rent Tribunals to comply with Sections 37–39 and Order XXI Rule 6 CPC.

The subsequent transfer certificate had been received by the Tribunal entrusted with the execution, and the petitioner did not establish that the transfer contravened a statutory prohibition or that the Tribunal lacked territorial or subject-matter competence.

The chronology of the transfer, by itself, did not establish inherent want of jurisdiction or invalidate earlier steps; nor was any independent jurisdictional defect in the recovery warrant demonstrated.

The Court also found no basis for Article 227 intervention.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending applications.