The executing companyrt heard the parties and held that in view of the companytroversy on questions of fact arising in the case the appellants objection can be finally decided only after the parties are allowed to lead evidence.
Her application under secs.
She alleges companylusion between them and the decree holder.
The respondent No 1 challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.
47 and 151 of C.P.C. and sec.25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was accordingly dismissed .
15021 of 1990 Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, who was a tenant in possession of the shop under dispute, died in 1982 leaving behind his widow, three sons and four daughters as his heirs and legal representatives.
The appellant has challenged the High Courts decision in the present appeal.
1 against the respondent Nos.
It is averred that the appellant who is an objector has been set up by the respondent Nos.
From the judgment and Order dated 23.7.1990 15.11.90 of Delhi High Court in C.M. M. Nos 288/89 and 357 of 1990.
In the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.
A date was accordingly fixed for trial of the disputed issue.
The landlord decree holder has denied the existence of another daughter of Khalil Raza by the name of Surayya Begum.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In execution, the unmarried daughters filed an objection inter alia companytending that they have independent title in the tenancy and the decree obtained against the other members of the family would number bind them.
2 to 9 to defeat the decree against them which was companytested for a decade upto the stage of Supreme Court.
Two of the four daughters were married and the remaining two daughters, appellants in the present appeal, were staying in the house but number joined as parties.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA,J. 1.
1 and it is companytended on her behalf that since she was number impleaded as a party to eviction proceeding started by the respondent, her right in the tenancy which is an independent right, cannot be put to an end by permitting the decree obtained to be executed.
Special leave is allowed in both the cases.
Her case is that she is also a daughter of Khalil Raza, which is denied by the respondent No.
2056 2057 of 1991.
Thereafter the respondent landlord companymenced an eviction proceeding in 1985, out of which the present matter arises, and impleaded only the wife and the sons of the deceased.
The suit was companytested by the mother and the brothers of the appellant but,ultimately a decree for eviction was passed.
Since they involve decision of some companymon questions of law they are being disposed of together by this judgment.
Avadh Behari and B. Dutta, Raju Ramchandrean and Mrs. Kiriti Misra for the Respondents.
The High Court agreed with the decree holder respondent holding that the appellant was bound by the decree and her objection was filed with the sole object of delaying the execution.
2 to 9 who are sons, daughters and wife of Khalil Raza .
The appellant Surayya Begum in the first case claims herself as one of the nine legal representatives of Khalil Raza, the original tenant of the premises in question, and is objecting to the execution of the decree of eviction obtained by the landlord respondent No.
Rajinder Suchher, Rajinder Mathur and Narain for the Appellant.
