LAIQ RAM Vs. MITHAN LAL, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts leading to these present proceedings are these : One Fazl-ul-Rehman is the owner of a three storeyed building situated in Khari Baoli, Delhi. Mithan Lal alleged that in May, 1949 he took the entire premises on lease on a monthly rental of Rs. 118/2/- and occupied the same but that he was forcibly dispossessed from different portions of the property by Laiq Ram and also by Murli Dhar and his sons. He filed two separate suits against these persons for possession and for recovery of damages for use and occupation. Both these suits were consolidated in the trial Court, and by judgment dated 31st August 1954 the trial Court decreed possession claimed by Mithan Lal but dismissed his claim for damages. The defendants filed two separate appeals, one in this Court and one in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi.

(2.) The appeal filed before the District Judge, was transferred to this Court and the two appeals were Regular First Appeal Nos. 115-D of 1954 and 136-D of 1955 respectively and both these appeals were ordered to be heard together. The defendants in both these appeals applied for stay of delivery of possession and it was in Letters Patent Appeals that an interim stay order was passed which remained in force from 25th November, 1954 to 23rd May, 1956. The parties applied to this Court in both the Regular First Appeals for consent decrees on the ground that the parties had compromised the dispute. This court disposed of both the appeals in accordance with the terms of the compromise on 23rd May, 1956. The main term of the agreements is that Mithan Lal let the premises to the defendants on a monthly rental of Rs. 60/- and Rs. 8/8/- respectively. These facts are not in dispute and they are matters of record.

(3.) One Ram Dhan made two separate applications to this Court on 4th June, 1956 under Order 22 rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and the present proceedings arise out of these applications. As the facts are common, it will be convenient to decide both these applications by this judgment.