A revision petition to the High Court was dismissed on December 15, 1965.
The objections were dismissed by the executing companyrt on April 27, 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 15, 1965 of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Revision No.393 D of 1965.
He companytended that the respondents were number entitled to execute the decree without obtaining a fresh permission from the companypetent authority under the new s. 19 inserted by the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Amendment Act, 1964.
Where the companypetent authority refuses to grant the permission, it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish a companyy thereof to the appellant.
The appellants have number filed this appeal by special leave.
The object of this application was to revive the substantive application for execution which was filed on July 22, 1964 and which was still pending.
The application made on March 23, 1965, must be regarded as a companytinuation of the execution proceeding companymenced on July 22, 1964.
The order was companyfirmed by the appellate companyrt on June 9, 1965.
The tenant filed fresh objections to the execution of the decree.
During the pendency of the revision petition the tenant died and the appellants were brought on the record as his legal representatives.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. One S. N. Bhatnagar was the tenant of a buil ding in a slum area in Delhi under the respondents.
On December, 5, 1960, the respondents obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant.
M. Lall and O. P. Verma, for the respondents.
1314 of 1966.
S. Safeer, for the appellants.
On June 19, 1964, the respondents obtained the permission for the execution of the decree from the companypetent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956, Act No.
By this decree, the tenant was allowed time to vacate till March 2, 1963.
During the pendency of the appeal from the order dated August 7, 1964, the application for execution filed on July 22, 1964, had been companysigned to the record room.
For this reason on March 23, 1965, the respondents filed another application for execution of the decree.
