NANAK CHAND Vs. MASTER AJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 10, 1951 respondent Ajit Singh obtained an order of eviction against Nanak Chand appellant and Babu Ram in an application for eviction under the Rent Act. The order of the Rent Controller was based on a compromise between the parties under which a year's time was given to Nanak Chand appellant and Babu Ram to vacate the disputed site.

(2.) THE order of eviction according to section 17 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, (East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949) is to be executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of that Court. Ajit Singh respondent made two execution applications to execute the eviction order but had the same consigned to the record room without notice or knowledge of the two persons against whom the eviction order was. Thereafter he made third execution application, out of which this second appeal has arisen, in which he claimed eviction of Nanak Chand appellant and Babu Ram. Nanak Chand appellant thereupon made an objection application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that five days after the date of the eviction order, that is to say on August 15, 1951, Ajit Singh respondent created an oral tenancy in his favour of the site for a rental of Rs. 5/ - per mensem, and ever since he has been in possession of the site paying rent to Ajit Singh respondent as tenant. To this the reply given by Ajit Singh respondent was that he such new tenancy was created, and apart from his bare denial in his reply he said nothing more.

(3.) THE learned District Judge has read it in a slightly different manner. His findings based largely on the statement of respondent Ajit Singh are that after the eviction order against Nanak Chand appellant and Babu Ram the continuance of Nanak Chand appellant in occupation of the site against payment of Rs. 5/ - as rent per mensem was in fact an arrangement continued as a concession under the decree, that is to say the eviction order, and not in derogation of the same, that Ajit Singh respondent had allowed this arrangement at the instance of Babu Ram, co -judgment -debtor of Nanak Chang appellant, who had requested the respondent to allow Nanak Chand appellant to stay for some time on the site, and that Ajit Singh respondent did not create a new tenancy in favour of Nanak Chand appellant after the eviction order as he continued suing for execution of the eviction order within limitation, the last application being the third. Babu Ram is not a witness in the case.