ALIMUDDIN Vs. MOHAMMAD MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. Respondents 1 to 3. who are the sons of the original decree-holder, deceased Shri Ahmed Ali Khan, are seeking to execute a decree which was passed in favour of their father, for eviction of petitioner's father as far back as on 29th January, I960. The father and predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Section 13 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952'), which culminated in the aforesaid decree on the ground of his personal requirement and that of his family members dependent on him, which obviously included his sons. The decree, however, could not be executed because under the provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Slum Areas Act'), the decree-holder was required to obtain sanction of the competent authority under the said Act for executing the decree in relation to the property situated in a slum area. The property being so situated, the decree-holder late Shri Ahmed Ali Khan had to approach the competent authority for the requisite sanction but that was declined in view of the situation in which the tenant was placed, both economically aswell as taking into consideration the members of his family. Even the appeal filed against that order was dismissed with the result that the decree-holder was rendered incapable of executing the decree by virtue of operation of the statute, relating to slum areas.

(2.) However, the tenant/judgement-debtor Shri Bashiruddin died in February 1968. Contending that the statutory protection under the Slum Areas Act did not extend to the legal heirs of the tenant, the decree-holder filed a suit for possession in the year 1971 and that suit was decreed on 9th May 1973. The appellant, as one of the sons of the judgment-debtor took that judgment to appeal and the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 5th April, 1978 at aside the judgment, of the subordinate court holding that the separate suit for possession was not competent and execution of the decree could be sought by the decree-holder because it was a matter of satisfaction, discharge and execution of the decree, and suit was barred.

(3.) It may be noted, however, that during the pendency of the suit before the Subordinate Judge, the decree-holder also died, his date of death being 6th April. 1973. His sons who are respondents I to 3, namely, S/Shri Mohd. Mian Mohd.Nabi and Mohd. Wali were brought on record as his legal representatives. It was pursuant to the observation of the Additional District Judge in the appeal decided vide judgment dated 5th April, 1978 that execution was taken out, and the present appeal arises out of that execution.