PANNA LAL Vs. PT. DEBI DAYAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for ejectment was passed against Panna Lal in February, 1946. It was consent decree. Panna Lal agreed not to take any advantage of the restrictions against ejectment under the various orders issued under the Defence of India Rules. The decree -holder unsuccessfully applied for permission to the District Magistrate to eject the judgment debtor. Subsequent to the enforcement of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act III of 1947) the decree holder applied for the execution of the decree by ejectment of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor objected to the execution and relied on Sec. 14 of the Act. The execution court held that Sec. 14 was applicable to consent decrees and it allowed the objection and dismissed the execution application. On appeal the Additional Civil Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the objection of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has come up in second appeal.

(2.) Sec. 14 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is general in terms and would apply to all decrees whether consent decrees or otherwise. A similar view was expressed in Shri Amulya Chandra Dutta v/s. Mst. Bibi Ahmedi Begam and Ors.1954 A.L.J. 622 where Sec. 20 of the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952 was considered and which Sec. is practically the same as Sec. 14 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. We therefore hold that merely because the decree is a consent decree it does not go beyond the operation of Sec. 14 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. It follows that this decree for ejectment cannot be executed except on any of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 3 of the Act. The decree can, however, be executed; even if any of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 3 does not exist, in case the judgment debtor does not comply with the proviso to Sec. 14 which is to the effect that "the tenant agrees to pay the landlord" reasonable annual rent or the rent payable by him before the passing of the decree, whichever is higher. These points are for consideration by the execution court.

(3.) We, therefore, allow the appeal against the dismissal of the judgment debtor's objection to the execution of the decree by ejectment and remand the case to the execution court with the direction that it will give an opportunity to the decree -holder to show whether any of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 3 of the U.P. Temporary,) Control of Rent and Eviction Act exists and justifies the execution of the decree by ejectment, and if such grounds is alleged, to consider it after giving an opportunity to the judgment debtor to contest it. The execution court will also inquire from the judgment debtor with respect to the terms of the proviso to Sec. 14. It will ultimately decide the question of the execution of the decree in the light of the various requirements of Sec. 14 of the Act. Costs of the appeal will be borne by the parties.