ASHOK KUMAR Vs. KANHIAYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal against the judgment and decree of the First Ad ditional Civil Judge, Meerut, rejecting the objections under Section 47, C.P.C. filed by the judgment- debtor-appellants. The plaintiff decree-holder (hereinafter referred to as" the decree-holder) filed suit No. 106 of 1970 for ejectment, re covery of arrears of rent and damages against the judgment-debtor- appellants (hereinafter referred to as judgment-deb tors) on the ground that Ashok Kumar, judgrnent- debior No. 1-was the tenant of the premises of a shop on the monthly rent of Rs. 73. He illegally sub-let the said shop to the judgment-debtor-appel lant No. 1. It was alleged that since the said sub-letting was illegal, therefore, these two judgment-debtors were liable to eviction. The suit was contested by the "judgment-debtors, by means of a joint written statement. It was alleged that initially the shop had been let out to Ashok Kumar and Kailash Chand. Kailash Chand left the partnership business, which was carried on in the premises and thereafter iudgment-debtpr Mahipal start ed doing it in partnership with Ashok Kumar, the other judgment-debtor. Ac cording to the case further taken in the written statement it was pleaded by judgment-debtors that this taking of Mahipal in partnership by Ashok Kumar was in the knowledge of decree-holders. Accordingly, the decree-holder could not get the eviction on the basis of the said alleged sub-letting.

(2.) THE trial court, thereafter, re corded the statements of the parties under Order X, Rule 2, C.P.C Mahipal in this statement could not give any satisfactory explanation relating to his possession in the property. He only as serted that he was in possession of some of the receipts executed in the joint names of himself and Ashok Kumar. Kanhaiya Lal. decree-holder, denied giv ing of any receipt in tne names of Ashok Kumar and Mahipal. It is correct that the judgment-debtors had denied the allega tions of illegal cub-letting as was alleged by the decree-holder but after the state ments were recorded it was clear thai they did not have any substantial de fence effectively repelling the case of the decree-holders relating to sub-letting. Having so found the judgment-debtors entered into a compromise with the de cree-holders. The compromise was as follows:-

(3.) THE execution court allowed the objection under Section 47 holding that the old relationship of landlord and tenant between the judgment-debtors and decree-holders got extinguished on the 16th of July, 1971. A new tenancy had come into existence on this date, there fore, the execution was not maintainable.