SHAVJI KANJI Vs. KANAKBHAI SURENDRABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed in 1969, the opponents could get a decree for eviction in their favour in 1973. The petitioners-tenants were given time till 31-3-1974 to vacate the suit premises. The petitioners then preferred Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1973; and even though their appeal came to be dismissed, they were given time till 1-4-1979 to vacate the suit premises.

(2.) Even after the expiry of that period, the petitioners did not vacate and, therefore, the opponents were required to file Execution Application No. 24 of 1982. Only contention which was pressed on behalf of the petitioners in those proceedings was that the decree was a nullity as they had given up all their contentions in the appeal on a specific condition that they will be given five years' time to vacate the suit premises. The executing Court, after perusing the purshis which was given by the petitioners in the appeal giving up their contentions found that the petitioners had not given up their contentions on condition that they should be given five years' time for vacating the suit premises. The executing Court found that only thing that was stated in the purshis was that the appellate Court should give them reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. As the executing Court did not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, the objections raised by them came to be overruled and a warrant for possession came to be issued. Against that order passed by the execucuting Court, the petitioners filed Civil Revision Application No. 104 of 1982 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. The Appellate Bench agreed with the reasoning and findings recorded by the executing Court and dismissed the revision aplpication. Against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench, this revision application is filed.

(3.) Same contention which was raised before the Courts below was raised before me; and relying upon the decision of this Court in Kaluram Bheruji v. Bai Parvati 23(1) GLR 201, it was further urged that this Revision Application should be allowed; and the decree of eviction should be held a nullity. As stated above, the whole contention is based on a misconception. The petitioners had given up their contentions in the appeal and prayed for reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. Possibly, finding that the appellate Court would not give a longer time if the appeal is decided on merits, the petitioners gave up their contentions and only prayed for a longer time to vacate.