The issue involved in these appeals is short.
The Court accordingly, by order dated 05.09.2007, pronounced the judgment and disposed of the suit in accordance with the companysent terms.
By impugned order, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Revisionary Court and restored the order of the Executing Court, which gives rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave by the defendants appellants in this Court.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part and while setting aside the impugned order as also the order passed by the Revisionary Court remand the case to the Revisionary Court for deciding the defendants appellants revision afresh on merits in accordance with law.
The Revisionary Court, by order dated 26.09.2016, allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Executing Court and remanded the case to the Executing Court for deciding the objection raised by the defendants appellants against the execution application afresh on merits.
The Executing Court, therefore, directed issuance of warrant of possession against the defendants appellants in relation to the suit premises.
By order dated 28.10.2015, the Executing Court overruled all the objections on merits and, in companysequence, held that the execution application filed by the plaintiff respondent is maintainable in law and the companysent decree is, therefore, executable against the defendants appellants .
The defendants appellants filed their reply and raised several objections on facts and law including maintainability of the execution application.
During the pendency of the suit, the parties, i.e., the appellants and respondent, companypromised the matter and accordingly filed their companysent terms on which the companypromise was arrived at between them.
Heard Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
One of the reasons to remand the case to the Executing Court was that the Revisionary Court allowed the defendants appellants to file additional documents Ex.22 , which they had filed for the first time in the revision petition.
Since the defendants appellants failed to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff respondent in terms of the companypromise, the plaintiff respondent filed an execution application No.31/2013 for execution of the companysent decree dated 05.09.2007 and prayed therein for issuance of possession warrant in respect of the suit premises against the defendants appellants .
The defendants appellants felt aggrieved and filed revision before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai.
The plaintiff respondent felt aggrieved by the order of the Revisionary Court and filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay.
It is number necessary to set out the facts in the pleadings of the parties.
The eviction was claimed inter alia on the ground of unauthorized user of the suit premises by the appellants defendants which, according to the respondent plaintiff , amounted to the change of user under the provision of Section 16 1 n of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
These appeals arise from the final judgment and Signature Not Verified order dated 21.07.2017 26.07.2017 passed by the Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Date 2018.09.26 171948 IST Reason No.6733 of 2017 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, set aside the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Small Causes Court, Appellate Bench, Mumbai in R.A. No.333/2015 and restored the order dated 28.10.2015 of the Executing Court in Execution Application No.31/2013 in R.A.E. Suit No.872/2007.
The Respondent plaintiff filed a suit No.872/2007 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai against the appellants defendants for their eviction from the suit premises.
Few facts, however, need mention to appreciate the issue, which is the subject matter of these appeals.
The issue arises out of eviction suit, which resulted in passing of a companypromise decree followed by its execution.
So far as the present appeals are companycerned, they arise out of an order passed in the execution proceedings.
In terms of the companypromise, the defendants appellants were to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff respondent on or before 31.01.2009 and the defendants appellants were also liable to pay Rs.5000/ per day by way of mesne profits if they fail to handover possession of the suit premises after 31.01.2009.
The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise.
