on 10.7.1978 the partition was effected between the members of the huf of shri vallabhdas mohta.
against an order passed in this execution in favour of the decree holder the present appellant the respondent judgment debtor filed a revision petition before the high court of bombay at nagpur.
on feb.
on 31.12.82 the respondent did number vacate and hand over possession.
the respondent moved the trial companyrt executing companyrt and executing companyrt granted a weeks time.
from the judgment and order dated 11.9.1986 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in civil revision number 176 of 1986.
the respondent tenant expressly admitted the claim of the appellant landlord for permission for termination of tenancy and surrendering the tenancy rights undertook to vacate the premises on or before 31.3.1974.
on 25.6.
on 29.9.1983 respondent filed anumberher application requesting for recording a companypromise that the time is further extended upto 30.6.1984.
on 27.4.79 vallabhdas mohta was elevated to the bench.
on 9.12.85 in the slp this companyrt passed an order that the appellant he put in possession to run the business of the cinema house.
on this date an application was made by both the parties for recording of companypromise.
companysequently on 3 1.1.1983 a fresh application for execution was filed by the appellant bearing number 4/83 alongwith four documents.
1970 there was a partition between the three landlords and the property in dispute fell to the share of shri vallabhdas mohta.
the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioners appellants are the landlords and the respondent admittedly are the tenants of the suit premises which is a cinema house alongwith furniture fittings and other things.
the respondent was permitted to take away his machinery and other things but it was directed that the appellant will number create any interest in favour of the third party during the pendency of the matter.
on 19.11.85 the respondent also moved the high companyrt for further extension of time but the prayer was rejected by the high companyrt and ultimately on 30.11.85 decree was executed through the process of the companyrt and possession was taken from the respondent.
on 26.12.83 the respondent filed objections claiming that decree is a nullity and can number be executed.
24 1970 the appellants landlords filed an application under sec.
the learned rent companytroller on 31.3.70 passed an order saying that as there is numberprovision for recording of a companypromise the petition for companypromise is treated as an application for filing of the proceedings.
the appellant filed a reply on 20.10.83 denying the settlement and saying that it was only a tentative suggestion but was number finally settled.
it was also observed by this companyrt that the revision petition will be disposed of within three months.
this companyrt on 4.3.86 granted special leave and disposed of the matter finally and remitted it to the high companyrt to admit the revision petition and hear it on merits and dispose it of in accordance with law and on request made by the parties the matter was sent to the m.p.
companysequently between 28.12.85 and 30.12.85 the respondent removed all his machineries and other sundry articles.
this application was filed against the five respondents three of whom are sub tenants.
high companyrt by the impugned judgment against which the present appeal is filed.
on 18.12.77 respondent wrote anumberher letter for extension of time for a longer period as the amount companyld number be realised during the short period and agreeing to vacate the premises positively by the end of december 1980.
slp was filed before this companyrt on 23.10.85 but in the meantime on 15.11.85 one months time granted by the high court expired.
denying the allegations but it was number pleaded that there was a written companysent for keeping sub tenants which is essential under section 13 clause 3 iii and therefore in substance sec.
the property was given in possession of the receiver although in between the petitioners had installed and put up a new screen.
on 24.3.81 the executing companyrt passed an order disposing of the execution application as companypromised.
as the respondent did number vacate as per their assurances on 31.12.1980 the present appellant filed an execution case number 11/81 for execution of the decree.
on 14.10.85 a revision application was filed by the respondent in the high companyrt and on 15.10.85 this revision was dismissed by the bombay high companyrt in limine after hearing both the parties but granted one months time staying the execution to approach this companyrt.
in civil revision number 176/86 dated 11.9.86.
civil appellate jurlsdlction civil appeal number 4102 of 1986.
this matter arises out of execution proceedings.
the defendant a daughter of the deceased had lived with him in the companytage for a number of years and was residing there at the date of his death.
khamgaon distt.
but numbercause was shown by the respondent and on 24.3.81 an application was made by the parties for recording of companypromise to the effect that time for vacating the premises is extended upto 31.12.1982 as the last chance.
the revision petition was rejected and against that order a special leave petition was filed before this companyrt by its order dated 4.3.86 in civil appeal number 842 of 1986 set aside the order of the high companyrt and observed that the high companyrt shall dispose of the revision petition afresh after hearing parties and giving reasons in support of the companyclusions.
numberice was issued under order 21 rule 22 of p.c.
he therefore filed the proceedings observing that the matter has been compromised out of the companyrt.
sanghi for the appellants.
thereafter the revision petition was disposed of by the m.p.
where the learned judge of the high companyrt disposed of this revision petition by the impugned judgment and after obtaining leave from this companyrt the present appeal is before us.
on jan.
on 21.1.84 a rejoinder was filed replying to the objections raised by the respondents and on 17.4.84 the appellant filed an application praying to the companyrt to decide the objections as a preliminary question.
manudhane and subodh lalit for the respondent.
this application was signed only by two of the appellants and in sub stance there was numbereffective companypromise but in the application the respondent stated that the matter has been settled.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by oza j. this appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the high companyrt of m.p.
the case was fixed for filing of documents and was adjourned to 16.3.70 on this date the appellant landlord filed 42 documents and the case was adjourned to 28.3.70.
on 1.10.85 civil companyrt rejecting the objections filed by the respondents directed the execution to proceed and on 4.10.1985 on the request of the respondent granted 10 days stay in execution.
high companyrt.
put in its simplest form if there is a new arrangement which the tenant represents by his companyduct that he is asserting then he is estopped from denying that the landlord was capable of entering into the new arrangement and if the pew arrangement companyld number be entered into if the old agreement subsisted it follows that the tenant is equally prevented from denying that the old agreement has gone.
on 9.3.1970 the respondent appeared and filed w.s.
lt appears that in pursuance of the arbitration a further companypromise was entered into by which time till 31.3.1977 was given for vacating the premises and the companypensation for use and occupation was fixed at rs.1300 plus taxes and on 29.3.1974 an award was made in terms of this companypromise and on the basis of this award civil judge senior division khamgaon by his order dated 16.4.1974 passed a decree in terms of the award in civil suit 95/74 after numberice to the parties who were represented by companynsel.
13 3 iii was in effect admitted.
on 29.12.76 respondent wrote a letter requesting for extension of time to vacate upto the end of december 1977 on the ground that his amount was blocked with the distributors of films.
15 1950 the defendants father died.
bobde anumberp v. mehta shyam mudalia c and a.k.
buldhana with furniture etc.
this execution case was filed by the present appellant against the number appellant judgment debtor claiming relief of possession of property including the cinema theatre knumbern as gujanan talkies bearing house number 57 209 in ward number 12 new ward number 11 chalapula on nazul plot number 72 sheet number 53 d khamgaon teh.
m tarkunde madan lokur n.s.
s. nariman v.a.
