Unregistered and unilateral agreements by a single co-owner cannot stall execution of a confirmed eviction decree.

The landlords (respondents) initiated HRP Suit No. 2314 of 1975 for eviction against the tenant, which was decreed in 1978 and confirmed by the High Court in 2003.

Subsequent to the High Court’s order, the petitioners (third-party objectors, including an heir of the original tenant) filed objections (Exhibits 15 and 19) in Execution Petition No. 74 of 2005.

They alleged that one co-owner (Balakrishna Chhotalal) had executed a fresh rent agreement, power of attorney, and MOU in 2004, creating a new tenancy and interest in the property.

The landlords disputed these documents as fabricated and filed a separate suit (RCS No. 1163 of 2005) challenging their genuineness.

The Executing Court rejected the objections, and the Small Causes Court Appellate Bench confirmed this dismissal on 18.04.2026. The petitioners approached the High Court in revision, arguing procedural irregularities.

1. Whether the Executing Court committed a jurisdictional error by failing to follow the procedure of a regular suit (framing issues and recording oral evidence) under Rule 294 of the Gujarat Civil Manual and Order 21 of the CPC

2. Whether a fresh tenancy or interest was legally created by the documents executed by only one co-owner/landlord after the eviction decree was confirmed

Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rent Act regarding revisional jurisdiction.

Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, which limits the High Court’s power in rent revisions to ensuring findings are "according to law" without reappreciating facts unless perverse.

Order 21 Rules 97–101 of the CPC concerning the adjudication of resistance to execution.

Ahmedabad Small Cause Court Rules, 1961 (specifically Rule 97, sub-rule 3), which permits the disposal of such applications by affidavit rather than a full trial.

Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, regarding the non-admissibility of unregistered documents creating interest in immovable property.

The High Court found that the inquiry required by the Ahmedabad Small Causes Court in execution is summary in nature.

Under Rule 97(3) of the 1961 Rules, these applications can be disposed of by affidavit; hence, the lack of a full trial or framing of issues did not constitute a procedural illegality.

Regarding the substance of the objections, the court noted that the documents (sale agreement, POA, and MOU) were executed by only one co-owner and could not bind other decree-holders.

The "fresh tenancy" claimed by the objectors was for a period that had already expired (2004–2005) and was not protected by the Rent Act, which was suspended in Gujarat in 2001.

Additionally, the sale agreement and irrevocable Power of Attorney were unregistered and thus failed to create any legal right, title, or interest under the Registration Act. The court concluded the objections were a maneuver to frustrate the 1978 decree.

It held that the objectors failed to establish any legal right to the property and that the Executing Court’s summary inquiry was sufficient.

As per Order 21 Rule 103, the execution remains subject to the final outcome of the pending Regular Civil Suit No. 1163 of 2005. The Court directed the immediate disposal of the execution petition.