RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. KOMALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT , as landlord, obtained a decree against the Appellant for ejectment and for arrears of rent. He applied for execution claiming possession of the premises. The application was resisted on the ground that after the extension of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Accommodation Act'), the decree is incapable of execution. The executing Court accepted the contention and rejected the application. The lower appellate Court set aside the order holding that the decree can be executed. The tenant has now come up in appeal.

(2.) THE Respondent had, with the permission of the Rent Controller, given a notice determining the tenancy on 25 9 -1951. He instituted the present suit on 22 -11 -1951. The trial Court decreed ejectment and finally in 1998 the High Court confirmed the decree. Before the landlord could obtain possession, the Accommodation Act, which was formerly in force in Madhya Bharat region, was extended to Mahakoshal region also on 1 -1 -1959. The application of the landlord for execution, which was then pending, was resisted on the ground that under Section 16 of the Accommodation Act, the decree could not be executed "except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 4". The executing Court held that no such grounds existed, but the lower appellate Court held that as the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent after the decree, the case fell within the exception in Section 4 of the Accommodation Act.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the Respondent that no grounds have to be mentioned at the time of execution, these words must be ignored as being repugnant to the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure Code. On this view, the section would be rendered meaningless and the protection which is intended to be given to the tenant will be completely lost. It spears that Section 16 has been enacted to bar execution of decrees for ejectment except where the ground mentioned in Section 4 can be made out. It has, therefore, to be interpreted in such a manner as to fulfil that intention Accordingly, I must hold that execution of decree for ejectment is completely barred under Section 16 of the Accommodation Act unless the decree -holder satisfies the executing Court that one of the grounds specified in Section 4 exists.