OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. MONMOTHONATH SADHUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the Official Trustee of West Bengal asks for an enquiry and investigation regarding resistance and obstruction offered by (1) Abdul Sukkur Moham-mad Osman Khan, (2) Akhtar Hossain Khan and (3) Abdul Jalil when the applicant wanted the Sheriff to execute his decree for possession of premises No. 17, 17/1 and 17/1/1 Kashi Nath Mallick Lane,. Calcutta. The application is made under Order 21, Rule 97, C. P. C. The respondents have appeared and used their affidavits in opposition to this application.

(2.) Before discussing the points of opposition, it will be necessary to state briefly the material and relevant facts.

(3.) This suit was instituted by the Official Trustee on 15-3-1946 against the defendant for the recovery of possession of the said premises which had been let out to the defendant whose tenancy was later determined by notice to quit. The defendant contested that suit. But after some proceedings a decree for ejectment was made on 18-12-1946 in favour of the plaintiff Official Trustee. By that decree the defendant was ordered and directed to deliver quiet possession of the said premises to the Official Trustee. An appeal was preferred by the defendant and during the pendency of the appeal the defendant applied and obtained stay of execution of the decree for possession. The defendant also gave an undertaking to the Court of Appeal to deliver vacant possession if the appeal went against him, so that the Official Trustee would not have to adopt execution proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with costs on 8-4-1948. In spite of the dismissal of the appeal, and in spite of that undertaking, the defendant, however, failed to vacate the premises and give delivery of possession to the Official Trustee, It is alleged in the petition that the defendant avoided proceedings in contempt for breach at his undertaking by residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The Official Trustee thereafter started execution proceedings early in July, 1949 when the defendant made another application making the case that he was not liable to be ejected because he was a ticca tenant under the Calcutta Ticca Tenancy Act, Thereafter an issue was directed to be) tried as to whether the defendant was a ticca tenant or not. That proceeding also went against the defendant, and by an order of Banerjee J. dated 2-2-1950 the defendant's application to be declared a tenant was dismissed with costs,