The second question was answered in affirmative and the third question was left open to be decided in a fresh execution petition if filed by the decree holder seeking execution of the decree passed by this Court.
Sadiq, the son of the original lessee for a further period of 30 years upto 4.12.1964.
The High Court raised following three questions for companysideration in the writ petition 1 whether the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal was capable of execution even if it merged in the decree passed by this Court in an appeal preferred against the decree passed by the High Court 2 whether Civil Judge Senior Division Kanpur Nagar, was companypetent to entertain the execution application and 3 whether the decree holder ceased to have any interest in the decree owing to termination of lease by efflux of time.
Thereafter, execution petition No.
The execution petition was filed in 1980.
By that time the lessee had already got renewed the lease on 2.3.1935 in favour of Haji Mohd.
Later, it was put to auction by the Manager, Custodian of Evacuee Property.
Almost 21 years have passed after filing the execution petition.
The U.P. Jal Nigam as well as State of U.P., aggrieved by the said order of the executing companyrt, filed civil revision petitions in the companyrt of IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur.
U.P. Jal Nigam filed undertaking before this Court on 28.3.1994.
Halim the lease was to be renewed after 30 years from the date of its companymencement with increase of 50 in rent the lease also permitted companystruction of building over the land the lessee accordingly companystructed a dwelling house on the leased land he let out the companystructed premises to the State of U.P. on 3.5.1937.
It was companytended that as per the undertaking given to this Court on 28.3.1994, P. Jal Nigam handed over possession of the disputed premises to the State of U.P., the real owner of the property after expiry of the lease period thus the decree of this Court stood satisfied in terms of the undertaking.
Writ Petition No.
34383/97.
305/1965 before the District Judge, Kanpur, which was also dismissed on 21.3.1969.
During the pendency of the second appeal, U.P. Jal Nigam was substituted in place of State of U.P. as the disputed property was in possession of Jal Nigam as tenant on behalf of State.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed Second Appeal No.
The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court and the impugned orders were quashed.
179/80 was filed.
It is thereafter that the State of U.P. filed Civil Misc.
They in turn sold the same to Krishna Gopal Chawla and others appellants herein through registered sale deeds in 1959.
The appellants preferred First Civil Appeal No.
Halim, was a lessee of the disputed property his legal representatives had only leasehold rights hence only leasehold rights were purchased by Gian Chand and others in auction since the original lessee was number the owner of the disputed property, it companyld number become evacuee property the maximum lease period of 90 years expired on 4.12.1994 and as such the decree holders had numberinterest in the property and they have ceased to be landlord of the disputed property.
The appellants, after the dismissal of the appeal by this Court, moved an application in the companyrt of Munsif City, Kanpur number Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kanpur Nagar to proceed with the execution of the decree.
Further, it was companytended that original lessee, Khan Bahadur Hafij Mohd.
On the basis of the said decree passed by the High Court, the appellants filed Execution Case No.
U.P. Jal Nigam and State of U.P. filed separate but similar objections under Sections 47, 37, 38, 39 and 151 CPC resisting execution.
The first question was answered in the negative.
One Gian Chand and others purchased the said property i.e. the land and building through auction sale.
This Court stayed the execution of the decree passed by the High Court till the disposal of the appeal and dismissed the appeal on 1.3.1994, companyfirming the judgment and decree passed by the High Court.
179/1980 in the companyrt of Munsif City, Kanpur, for execution of the decree against U.P. Jal Nigam.
Krishna Gopal Chawla and others, claiming themselves to be the landlords of the property, filed original civil suit No.
12 situated in Block 7, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur.
This property was leased for a maximum period of 90 years in December, 1904 by Secretary of State in favour of one Khan Bahadur Hafij Mohd.
The High Court allowed the appeal, decreed the suit of the appellants on 20.9.1979 for arrears of rent, ejectment as well as for damages for use and occupation.
The said suit was later transferred to Ivth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, who dismissed the said suit on 19.4.1965.
In brief, the relevant and necessary facts for disposing of this appeal are the following The property in dispute is premises No.
The learned Addl.
Consequently, the said property was declared evacuee property by the Notification dated 3.10.1952.
Formal order prepared pursuant to the said judgment passed by this Court is reproduced in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
The respondents approached this Court in Civil Appeal No.
7/86 along with the land, which forms part of Nazul plot No.
In the meanwhile the respondents approached this Court by filing the appeal and in the appeal order was passed staying the execution proceedings pending in the executing companyrt.
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. Leave granted.
Hence, this appeal.
However, with the companysent of the parties, U.P. Jal Nigam was allowed to remain in possession of the disputed premises for one year from the date of judgment on filing undertaking on usual terms.
The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.1998 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
1714/1963 for arrears of rent, ejectment and for damages for use and occupation against the State of U.P. in the companyrt of Munsif City, Kanpur.
The objections were that the decree passed by the High Court merged in final judgment passed by this Court hence the decree of this Court dated 1.3.1994 alone companyld be executed and number that of the High Court the companyrt of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kanpur Nagar, has got numberjurisdiction to execute the decree the companyrt of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kanpur Nagar, is number companyrt of first instance.
2565/1969 before the High Court.
Writ Petition No.
1365/1980, aggrieved by the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal.
District Court dated 12.8.1997 passed in revision.
After hearing the parties and having companysidered all objections including additional objections raised in the revision petitions, the learned District Judge dismissed them by a well companysidered order dated 12.8.1997.
The executing companyrt companyrt of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kanpur after hearing, by a detailed order dated 5.9.95, rejected all the objections raised by the U.P. Jal Nigam and State of U.P. and directed for delivery of possession.
The suit was decreed by the High Court in second appeal.
Admittedly the suit was filed by the appellants as the landlords seeking eviction of the respondents from the disputed property in addition to claiming for arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation of the property.
Still the appellants are number able to get benefit of the decree.
34383/97 for quashing the orders of executing companyrt dated 5.9.1995 and the order of the Addl.
Thereafter, legal representatives of the original lessee migrated to Pakistan.
