SARISH CHANDRA Vs. 17TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders passed by Munsif North, Lucknow on 16-11-1992 rejecting objection filed by the petitioner and another order passed by the 17th Additional District Judge on 20-1-1993 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

(2.) Harish Chandra father of the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 was a tenant in house No. 18 Khyali Ganj, Lucknow, of which the opposite party No. 3 Smt. Kalawati is the landlady. She obtained permission from the District Magistrate under S. 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1957 and instituted a suit for eviction of Harish Chandra in 1956. This suit was decided by a compromise arrived at between the parties on 22-7-1958 according to which the defendants admitted the need of the plaintiff and agreed to a decree being passed for eviction. It was, however, stipulated that the decree would be executed only when the tenant commits a default in payment of damages for a period of two months. It was in 1978 that opposite party No. 3 applied for execution of the aforesaid decree alleging that a default has been committed. This execution again ended by a compromise which inter alia provided that the possession of the first-floor of the house shall be given to the decree-holder while the tenant was permitted to live in the ground-floor for another period often years after which period the tenant was to vacate the ground-floor. The period of ten years since this - compromise having elapsed, the decree-holder again put her decree to execution in September, 1990.

(3.) The original judgment-debtor Harish Chandra having died in the meantime execution was sought against the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 his legal representatives. The judgment debtor filed an objection u/S.47, CPC against the execution of the decree. That objection was heard and rejected by the learned Munsif by the impugned order as indicated above. A revision filed against this order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.