DHANI BAHERA Vs. SUSHIL CHANDRA PALIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT is the landlord and the appellant is the tenant under him in respect of a house situate in the city of Cuttack. In House Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1968 the landlord obtained an order of eviction on 6-9-1963 wherein the tenant was directed to vacate the house within four months. As the tenant did not vacate the house, the landlord filed the execution case on 6-3-1964. On receipt of notice under Order 21 Rule 22, C. P. C. the appellant filed an objection under Section 47, c. P. C. alleging that there was an adjustment of the decree on 6-11-1963. The story of settlement, as stated in the objection petition, was that the parties agreed that the tenant would henceforward pay rent regularly and continue in possession of the house as a tenant as before and the landlord would not execute the eviction order dated 5-9-1963 without going into the merits of the objection by taking evidence, the learned Munsif dismissed the petition staling that no document showing settlement having been filed, the objection could not be accepted. Against that order an appeal was carried to the learned District Judge, who held that the alleged adjustment dated 6-11-68 was one under Order 21 Rule 2, C. P. C. , and as the judgment-debtor did not certify the adjustment within 90 days, as required under Article 174 of the Limitation Act (Act IX) of 1908, (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act), it was barred by limitation. In this view of the matter he did not remand the case for going into evidence on merits whether in fact there was any adjustment as pleaded by the judgment-debtor.

(2.) IN support of the judgment of the learned lower appellate court, Mr. Sinha advanced two contentions:

(3.) ORDER 21 Rule 2, C. P. C. , reads thus: 2. Payment out of Court to decree holder: