The judgment debtor has failed to indicate that the MOU dated 11.6.1995 and the unregistered agreement dated 26.6.2001 at the time when numberice was issued and made absolute and execution was ordered to be prosecuted with.
The order was passed way back on 6.12.2000 by the companypetent authority, which has attained finality up to this Court.
408, Saidham Co operative Society Sodawala Lane, Borivli West , Mumbai to respondent number 2.
However, Notice number 900/06 was filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC before the High Court for proceeding with the execution.
It was submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.6.1995 and agreement dated 26.6.2001 are sham and had been set up after passing of the order for possession and companypensation by the respondents to defeat the execution of the order.
408 Saidham Co operative Society Sodawala Lane, Borivli West , Mumbai which was purchased in the name of herself and her daughter Chetana.
The companypetent authority had passed the eviction order on 6.12.2000.
The appellant had submitted that on 1.10.1987 respondent number 1, Smt.
Against the order of the companypetent authority, Respondent number 1 filed CRA number 678 of 2001 before the High Court which was dismissed.
The facts indicate that the MOU and the agreement had been set up by respondent number 1 in order to delay and frustrate the eviction order and payment of companypensation.
Thereafter the premises were number vacated, number the companypensation was paid.
A reply was filed by the appellant on 12.3.2011 and the chamber summons was opposed on the ground that a fraud being played on the Court.
On 20.12.2001, the appellant filed an application before the companypetent authority for recovery of possession and injunction upon respondent number 1 from selling the flat in question.
The High Court had already made the numberice absolute on 22.3.2007 without any objection filed by Judgment debtor.
On 12.4.2002 the application filed by the appellant was allowed.
However, possession of the licensed premises was handed over on 17.7.2001 to the appellant, the amount of companypensation from 1984 till 2001 at the rate of Rs.8,000/ per month was number paid.
As the licence agreement had expired with respect to the vacation of flat No.
Thereafter the SLP was dismissed on 18.3.2002 as having been withdrawn by respondent number 1.
Later on, Respondent number 2, daughter of respondent number 1, filed Chamber Summon No.
Though the possession was handed over on 17.7.2001 to the Appellant, the amount of companypensation was number paid.
Thereafter on 26.6.2001, in order to defeat the order of eviction and payment of companypensation, respondent number 1 had entered into so called agreement which is an unregistered document in favour of her daughter in the shape of transfer deed.
F 201, Building No.4, Prem Nagar, Mandpesbwar Road, Borivali West , Mumbai, eviction proceedings had been initiated under section 13A 2 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, in which respondent number 1 made a statement that there was another flat being Flat No.
1 and 2 to illegally defeat the order of payment of companypensation.
Later, upon the statement made that possession of the flat was handed over, the SLP was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn.
Thereafter on 2.2.2009 warrant of attachment of movable property was issued by the High Court in the execution.
Thereafter respondent number 2 filed a Special Leave Petition number 7022 of 2001 before this Court and obtained an ex parte stay only on the ground for extension of time to vacate.
408, Saidham Co operative Society Sodawala Lane, Borivli West , Mumbai.
The appeal had been rejected by the High Court against the order of the companypetent authority for eviction and companypensation on 10.4.2001.
On 5.6.2002 the application filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 42 was allowed and respondent number 1 was directed to pay arrears of monthly license fee Rs.8,000/ per month.
MOU casts a duty upon respondent number 2 to look after and maintain the vendor and her family even after her marriage and ceases to stay in the flat in question with the vendor.
On 8.5.2001, in the SLP preferred by respondent number 1, an interim ex parte stay order was granted by this Court.
The documents filed by respondent number 2 have been relied upon.
The appellant had filed a suit for eviction with respect to Flat No.
However, in order to defeat and frustrate the decree with respect to the companypensation, respondent number 1 transferred the flat in question to respondent number2 by an unregistered agreement deed dated 26.6.2001 which is neither properly stamped number duly registered.
1249/09 for setting aside the attachment of the suit flat and moveables therein by companytending that by Memo of Understanding for short the MOU dated 11.6.1995 and an unregistered agreement dated 26.6.2001 respondent number 1 had sold the flat in question to respondent number 2 for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/ .
Thereafter, an application under Order 21 Rules 41 and 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Appellant restraining respondent number 1 from transferring the flat No.
On 10.4.2002, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application under Order 21 Rule 42 CPC for recovery of amount of companypensation of Rs.6,48,000/ along with interest and for attachment of the flat in question.
Such an understanding by the married daughter by itself falsifies the documents and indicates that a dubious transaction had been entered into between respondent number.
The attachment has been set aside.
F 201, Building No.4, Prem Nagar, Mandpesbwar Road, Borivali West , Mumbai against respondent number 1 as license had expired on 1.11.1994.
Miscellaneous application dated 10.4.2001 was filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 42 CPC for issuance of warrant for recovery of the companypensation and arrears of license fee in the sum of Rs.6,48,000/ along with interest 9 per annum and for attachment of flat in question along with injunction upon respondent number 1 from selling the flat.
It was mentioned in Clause 3 of the MOU that the purchaser i.e. respondent number 2 had agreed to look after and maintain the vendor and her family even after her marriage and she ceased to stay in the flat with the vendor.
Hence, the present appeal.
Respondent number 1 was restrained from transferring the suit property.
The companypetent authority passed an order directing the respondent number 1 to handover vacant possession to the appellant along with companypensation of Rs.8,000/ per month with effect from 1.11.1994 till the date of handing over the possession.
Chandrika Nandlal Mehta came to be the owner of the flat and entry of ownership was transferred in her favour on 23.2.1995.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
It was only after the numberice was made absolute and the flat in question had been attached, respondent number 2 has taken the chamber summons in question on the basis of which the impugned release order was passed by the High Court.
ARUN MISHRA, J. Leave granted.
This numberice attained finality as respondent number 1 failed to submit any reply to the numberice.
The appellant has questioned the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in relation to Chamber Summons No.
