SULTANA BEGUM Vs. PREM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant before us is the landlady of the premises, "Pink City Hotel", Mumtaz Bagh, Jaipur, which was in occupation of the respondent as a tenant against whom a suit for eviction on various grounds including default in payment of rent, sub-letting, as also for bona fide requirement was filed, which ultimately ended in a compromise on 16-9-1991. The compromise decree which was passed on that date provided that the respondent would vacate the premises and hand-over its possession to the appellant or to her attorney, Ramesh B. Sharma, by 10th of February, 1992. and that he would pay rent @ Rs. 3, 100/- per month from the date of the suit till date of delivery of possession.

(2.) Since the premises were no vacated by the respondent and its possession was not handed over to the appellant in terms of the compromise decree, she filed an application for execution which was resisted by the respondent by means of objections filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which it was pleaded by him that possession of the premises in question was handed over to Ramesh B. Sharma on 31-10-1991 who, however, allowed the respondent to remain in possession of the premises as a licencee on payment of the licence fee of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was pleaded that since possession of the disputed premises was handed over to Ramesh B. Sharma, who was the legally constituted attorney of the appellant, the decree stood satisfied and as such it could not be executed. It was also pleaded that in terms of the fresh licence, the respondent had already paid the licence fee @ Rs. 5,000/- to Ramesh B. Sharma, who had also issued a receipt to him.

(3.) The appellant, in reply, pointed out that the power of attorney executed by her in favour of Ramesh B. Sharma was cancelled by notice dated 1-12-1991 and by another notice dated 31st January, 1992 Ramesh B. Sharma was required not to act as the appellants attorney in any manner whatsoever. It was pleaded that since the power of attorney in favour of Ramesh B. Sharma had already been cancelled, there was no occasion for the respondent to have handed over possession of the premises in question to Ramesh B. Sharma, nor could Ramesh B. Sharma create a fresh licence in his favour.