MANGAL DAS Vs. BANKA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal must fail in view of the direct decision of this Court in Savitri Ahuja V/s. Harbans Singh Mehta, 1964 AIR(P&H) 487 The facts of that case and the present case are identical.

(2.) An application was made for eviction of the appellant on the 26th May, 1962 on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises and that he had not paid rent for the same. On the 8th August, 1963, a compromise was arrived at. According to this Commissioner, the decree for eviction was passed; but this decree for eviction was not to be executed for a period of three years, in case that tenant paid rent from 1st May, 1962 to 31st July, 1963 within one month. If the rent was not so paid, the execution was to proceed. On the 5th October, 1963, an application was made for execution of the decree on the ground that the rent had not been paid. Objection was raised to the execution by the tenant and his objection seems to be that the eviction decree was null and void. This objection was rejected by the executing Court on the ground that it was not open in execution proceedings inasmuch as the executing Court could not go behind the decree. Against this order, an appeal was taken to the Senior Subordinate Judge. The ex-parte injunction was refused by the appellate Court on the ground that a separate suit was competent in view of the decision of this Court in Amar Nath V/s. Bagga Mal,1964 PunLR 347. In this situation, the present suit was filed.

(3.) An objection was taken by the landlord that the present suit was not competent in view of Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which is in these terms :-