PRABHU DAYAL Vs. UDAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal had impugned the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 which has reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 22.11.2005. Vide judgment dated 22.11.2005 the objections filed by Prabhu Dayal under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Code) were accepted; it was held that the decree dated 20.02.2003 could not be executed against the objector namely Prabhu Dayal; he was a lawful tenant in the suit premises and could not be dispossessed; his objections stood allowed. The impugned judgment dated 31.10.2008 had reversed this finding; the objections of Prabhu Dayal stood dismissed; court was of the view that the decree holder was admittedly the owner of the suit premises; objector having been inducted in the suit property through the licensee, he could not claim any right after a decree of eviction had been passed against the licensee/judgment debtor.

(2.) THE factual matrix is as follows:-

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent it is pointed out that the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity; it is not disputed that the appellant Prabhu Dayal is claiming his title as a tenant from Shakuntla Devi; Shakuntla Devi was admittedly not the owner of the suit property; Udal Ram her father-in-law was the owner and he not having consented to this arrangement, the question of the appellant having become a lawful tenant does not arise.