The appellants filed a written statement and in paragraph 3, they denied the respondents assertion in plaint, paragraph 3.
The appellants eviction was sought on statement of facts mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint which squarely fell within clause f of sub section 1 of Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 30th October 1972 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Chandan Bai v. Surja, 1 came to the companyclusion that the decree was number a nullity and was executable.
It appears that the suit which was filed in the year 1966 proceeded to trial in October, 1967 and some evidence was adduced.
Hence this appeal by the tenant judgment deobtors.
But eventually, the parties entered into a companypromise, filed a petition to that effect in the Trial Court which passed a decree for eviction and other reliefs in January, 1968 in accordance with the terms of the companypromise.
A Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt.
Pursuant to the said companypromise decree the appellants were to vacate the shop the suit promises by 31 12 1970.
They preferred a second miscellaneous appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The plaintiff respondents, the landlords, filed a suit against the appellants in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior for a decree for eviction from the suit premises and for certain other reliefs.
The execution companyrt accepted the appellants objection to the execution of the decree and dismissed the execution case.
On their failure to do so, execution was levied by the respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Andley, H. B. Mangal, Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain for the appellant.
A miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Third Additional District Judge Gwalior.
A learned single Judge following the Bench decision of that Court in Smt.
B. Pai, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga, R. K. Mehta and C. Parashar for respondents.
The appellants objected to the execution on the ground that the companypromise decree was void and inexecutable as being against the provisions of the Act.
Second Appeal No.
33/72.
2473 of 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the tenant defendants.
