Their case was that the second respondent was a partner of the 1st respondent During the pendency of the trial of the suit, the appellant and the 1st respondent entered into a companypromise on the basis of which a companypromise decree was passed by the Court The companypromise petition does number make any reference to the alleged sub lease.
He leased out that shop to the 1st respondent on November 8, 1953.
On the allegation that the 1st respondent has sub let the shop to the second respondent, the appellant brought a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi for the eviction of the respondents, under Section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 to be hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act .
The Order made by the Court in that companynection reads thus As per companypromise, decree for ejectment and for Rs.
This companytention was accepted by the execution Court, the appellate Court as well as by the High Court.
Under the terms of the companypromise, the 1st respondent was given four years time from the date of the companypromise decree for delivering possession of the suit premises.
165 with proportionate companyts is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant The parties shall be bound by the terms of the companyrise.
The respondent denied the sub lease alleged by the appellant.
Dated the 4th March, 1985.
The terms of the companypromise incorporated in the decree sheet.
At the end of the said four years, the appellant attempted to execute the decree.
4682, Plot No.
21, Daryaganj, Delhi.
One of the terms of the lease was that the 1st respondent should number sub let the shop.
Orders pronounced.
The appellant is the owner of Shop No.
