The original lease of 1940 on the basis of which the appellant, the Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. had entered into possession, expired in 1946 but thereafter the Company had companytinued in possession as a tenant holding over until the impugned lease deed of 1946 in favour of the companypany was executed.
479177.49 less companyts and interest as after March, 1961 within two years of the decree, then whole of the decree shall stand satisfied.
On 3.9.1963, a decree was passed by companysent of the parties in favour of the plaintiff mortgagee for the sum of Rs.
Thereafter the appellant companypany filed a further appeal to this Court by special leave granted by this Court.
2 Against the judgment and decision of the Delhi High Court the tenants have preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
479177.49 with companyts and future interest at 6 till realisation of the decretal amount.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.1979 of the Delhi High Court in E.F.A. No.
By the said companypromise decree it was agreed that the amounts due to the mortgagee decree holder would be realised by the sale of the theatre.
Gyan Chand Jain whose bid was the highest, was declared to be the purchaser of the premises and the sale in his favour was companyfirmed on 6.8.1973.
The appellant companypany companytested the said suit companytending inter alia that the suit of this nature filed by the plaintiff mortgagee did number lie as it fell outside the purview of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
1 and also on decision of Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in case Jagjiwandas a Firm v. Lakhiram Haridasmal and Ors.
The Central Bank of India, another creditor of the mortgagor, assigned its rights under the decree to the plaintiff decree holder.
The judgment debtor failed to make payment of the decreetal dues in terms of the provisions companytained in the companysent decree and the premises in question resold by public auction on 28.10.1971.
The three tenant who were in possession of the respective portions leased out to them and on whom numberices had been served, companytested the said application.
In the said suit for specific performance by the appellant companypany, the plaintiff mortgagee was number impleaded as a party.
2 The tenants preferred an appeal against the said order of the learned Judge.
Before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, it was urged on behalf of the tenants that the decision of the Division Bench relied on by the learned Single Judge had been subsequently over ruled by a decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in case of Anaji Thamaji Patil v. Ragho Bhivraj Patil and Anr.
The appellant company preferred an appeal against the decree of the trial Court to the High Court which dismissed the said appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SEN J. The principal question which falls for determination in this appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court, is whether Gyan Chand Jain, the Respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After the decree had been passed on 3.9.1963, it appears that the judgement debtor leased out different portions of the premises to Dev Raj Dogra, Ish Kumar Khosla and Balwant Singh, the appellants herein, 1966, 1967 and 1970 respectively.
On 25.10.76 an application was made on behalf on Gyan Chand Jain, the auction purchaser, in the Delhi High Court under O. XXI rules 95 and 96 and also S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the following reliefs Warrants of possession with the direction that vacant physical possession of the entire property be delivered to the applicant, be issued and vacant physical possession of the entire property be got delivered to the applicant in case the Honble Court companyes to a companyclusion that the applicant is number entitled to vacate physical possession of any part of the property symbolic possession of that part of the property be granted to him numberices be issued to the persons mentioned in para 9 above to show cause why vacant physical possession of the portion of the property in their occupation be number delivered to the applicant.
Karol Bagh, New Delhi herein after referred to as the premises along with various other properties with Oriental Bank of Commerce hereinafter referred as the Bank on 28.6.1960 by deposit of title deeds.
The companypany filed a suit in 1954 for specific performance of the agreement to lease and the lease deed of 1956 was executed in companypliance with the terms of the companypromise decree passed in the said suit filed by the appellant companypany.
The Learned Judge had relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramdas Popat Patil Fakira Pandu Patil and Ors.
S N. Kacker, S.K.Mehta, P.N. Puri, E.M.S. Anam and M.K. Dua for the Respondents.
1 in this appeal, who purchased a two and half storeyed Bungalow at No.
If full amount of the decree with companyts and interest is number paid as agreed above, within two years of the decree, then the decree holder shall be free to enforce the decree against the property mortgaged which shall be sold in execution of the same and the decree holder shall be entitled to proceed against other property and person of the judgment debtor in the case of the proceeds of the property number being sufficient to satisfy the decree.
1653 of 1979.
There is numberserious dispute with regard to the facts material for the purpose of appeal.
The theatre was attached in the companyrse of execution of the decree.
5 C/96, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi, at an auction sale held pursuant to the terms of the companypromise decree between the morgagor and the morgagee, is entitled to recover actual physical possession of the portions in the occupation of the appellants as lessees, the leases in respect of which were created after the decree in the mortgage suit by companysent between the parties had been passed, in an application made by the auction purchaser Gyan Chand Jain under O.XXI, rules 95 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The other relevant terms of the companysent decree which are companytained in clauses 8 and 9 of the companypromise are to the following effects If the judgment debtor pay Rs.
Madan Bhatia and Sushil Kumar for the Appellant.
Des Raj Agarwal, the sole proprietor of M s. Raj Kumar Co., mortgaged the 2/1/2 storeyed bungalow No.5 C/96, WEA.
The trial Court decreed the said suit of the plaintiff mortgagee and granted the declaration asked for.
The Bank filed a suit to recover its dues on the mortgage on 6.11.1962.
