Tenant’s Possession to Be Restored Despite Fresh Lease: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Third-Party Objections in Execution
Case Name: Mohammad Nadeem v. Dinesh Kumar and Another
Date of Decision: 19 February 2026
Citation: CR-1729-2020
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a third party claiming possession under a lease deed executed during pendency of appeal and execution proceedings cannot defeat a final revisional order directing restoration of possession to the original tenant. Once such order has attained finality, the Executing Court is bound to implement it and cannot entertain objections that seek to nullify its effect.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Malerkotla, dismissing his objection application in execution proceedings .
The eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act had been decided on 30.01.2017, directing the tenant to clear arrears within two months. The tenant deposited Rs.10,380/- within time on 28.03.2017. Despite this, the landlord initiated execution and obtained warrants of possession on 10.04.2017. The warrants were recalled on 11.05.2017, yet the landlord took possession the same day .
The tenant’s restoration plea was initially dismissed on account of an alleged shortfall of Rs.1485/-, which was later deposited. In CR-6959-2017, this Court, vide order dated 08.01.2020, held that there were no subsisting warrants of possession and directed restoration of possession to the tenant within one month. That order attained finality .
During pendency of appeals against the eviction judgment, the landlord executed a lease deed dated 14.06.2017 in favour of the present petitioner. The High Court noted that the lease was executed when litigation was ongoing and thus could not override the final order directing restoration.
The Executing Court dismissed the petitioner’s objections, holding that he derived possession from the landlord and was bound by the order dated 08.01.2020. The High Court affirmed this reasoning, observing that the Executing Court cannot go behind a binding revisional order and that the petitioner’s rights, if any, were subject to the outcome of the pending litigation .
Reiterating the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, and relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Court held that no jurisdictional error or perversity was made out.
Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The order rejecting the petitioner’s objections stood upheld .