For some reason or other the said decree has number been executed until and application was filed under Order XXI Rule 22 of the C.P.C. and in that application the Court passed an order on 9.9.1991 for execution of the decree and for delivery of possession.
Pending Obstruction Application, respondent filed Declaratory Suit being R.A.D. Suit No.
2152 of 1991 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for a declaration of his tenancy rights by companytending that there was a tenant of the premises since 1973 through M s. Halda Engineering Company.
534 of 1969, the decree against original defendant No.
2,3 and 4 respectively for obtaining vacant possession of the said premises on the ground that original defendant No.
1695 of 1979 before the High Court.
Against that order appellant preferred Writ Petition No.
1 was companyfirmed and the decree of dismissal against defendant Nos.
In the said suit, the present appellant judgment creditor appeared and indicated the fact that how the decree for eviction granted in his favour had number been executed and prayed that possession should be delivered to him immediately and also respondent should be directed to deposit mesne profits from 1.1.1984 till 30.6.1996 at the prevailing market rent.
On appeal being Appeal No.
Against that order, the present appeal is filed by special leave.
The trial companyrt did number accept the prayer for handing over possession, but directed the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit, that he should pay at the rate of Rs.443.93 p. per month for the said period as mesne profit.
The present appellant had obtained a decree for eviction in Rent Suit No.
That petition was dismissed on 4th May, 1984 with a direction that decree shall number be executed on or before 31st December, 1984 on companydition that petitioner shall file an undertaking on the terms stated therein.
594/5333 of 1962 as early as on 16th June, 1969.
The suit was filed against i M s. United Artists Corporation Original Defendant No.
1 and the order passed by the trial companyrt dismissing the suit against them was also reversed by passing a decree against original defendants 2, 3 and 4.
The appellant carried the matter to the High Court unsuccessfully.
This appeal has been filed under the following circumstances.
DER Leave granted.
The High Court companyfirmed the decree against the original defendant No.
Against that judgment and decree M s. Halda Engineering Company filed special leave petition before this Court.
2 to 4 was also companyfirmed.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit against defendant No.1.
1 , ii The Western India Theaters Ltd. iii M s. Halda Engineering Co., and iv Anti Friction Bearing Corporation Limited Original Defendant Nos.
When this matter was pending before this Court, parties took several adjournments to get the matter amicably settled.
The present respondent obstructed the delivery of possession on the ground that he was in possession of the property.
1 had failed to pay rent for a period of six months and for unlawful subletting the premises.
