- (1.) Special leave is allowed in both the cases. Since they involve decision of some common questions of law they are being disposed of together by this judgment.
(2.) 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 I against respondents 2 to 9 who are sons, daughters and wife of Khalil Raza. Her case is that she is also a daughter of Khalil Raza, which is denied by respondent 1; and it is contended on her behalf that since she was not impleaded as a party to the 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. She alleges collusion between them and the decree holder.
(3.) The landlord-decree holder has denied the existence of another daughter of Khalil Raza by the name of Surayya Begum. It is averred that the appellant who is an objector has been set up by respondents 2 to 9 to defeat the decree against them which was contested for a decade up to the stage of Supreme court.;