T.S.Misra, J. - (1.) Since First Appeal No, 1 of 1977 and Civil Revision No. 607 of 1978 and Civil Revision No. 704 of 1978 raise common questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents in the 1st appeal filed a suit against the defendants-appellants for their eviction from the building known as "Pushpraj Chhavigrah" situate at Civil Lines, Faizabad and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages alleging inter alia that the said building was not governed by .the (U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972) (U. P. Act. No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter called the Act). The suit was resisted by the defendants who filed their written statements alleging inter alia that the provisions of the Act apply to the said building. The trial court framed eight issues. Issue No. 2 was in the following terms:- "Whether the disputed accommodation is not governed by the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as alleged by the plaintiffs - The Act came into force on 15th July, 1972. The learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and the plaintiffs-respondents conceded that the construction of the said building was completed prior to the enforcement of the Act i.e. prior to 15th July, 1972. In other words the said building has been in existence prior to 15th July, 1972. The defendants had taken that building on lease from the plaintiffs by an agreement dated 30th January, 1966. Ext. 2, Another agreement was also executed in that behalf on 24th February 1966, Ext. 1. From these two documents also it is quite plain that the construction of the building in question was completed prior to 30th January, 1966. There was, therefore, no dispute between the parties before us that the building had come into existence prior to 15th July, 1972 when the Act came into operation. The trial court decided issue No. 2 in the negative. According to the trial court the Act became applicable to the said building during the pendency of the said suit. The trial court decreed the suit against the defendants for the ejectment from the disputed building and for the recovery of Rupees 13,300/- from the defendants as arrear of rent and damages for use and occupation and also for the recovery of pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 3,800/-per month on payment of court fee on the execution side. The trial court also ordered and decreed that the deposits already made by the defendants in court in the suit and withdrawn by the plaintiffs and the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- under the agreement dated 30th January, 1966 shall be adjusted towards the decretal amount only. This decree was passed by the trial court on a consideration of the evidence on the record and on its findings recorded on all the issues framed by it. Aggrieved by that decision the defendants filed the First Appeal No. 1 of 1977.
(3.) On 27th April, 1977, this court on an application of the appellants passed the following interim order:- "I have heard the parties counsel. The interim order staying execution of the decree so far as the ejectment is concerned is modified in these terms:- (l) The appellant shall deposit to the credit of the plaintiff the decretal amount as also the pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1900/- per month minus the amount already deposited by him within a period of one month in the trial court. (2) The appellant shall furnish bank guarantee in the sum calculated at the rate of 1000/- per month from the date of the decree up-to-date, within a period of two months and he will continue to deposit such bank guarantee at the said rate at the end of each quarter in future until the disposal of the appeal. (3) The appellant may furnish bank guarantee or furnish security of immovable property to the satisfaction of the trial court in a sum calculated at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from the date of the decree up-to-date in the trial court within a period of two months. He will continue to furnish such security at the end of each quarter at the said rate until the disposal of the suit. In the event of non-compliance of any of the above conditions the interim order staying execution of the decree for ejectment shall stand vacated." The decree-holders having come to the view that the judgment-debtors had not complied with the order filed an execution application before the trial court. That application was also resisted by the judgment-debtors who filed an application under Section 47, C. P. C. alleging that the decree was not executable inasmuch as it was a nullity and also pleading that they had not committed any default. The executing court allowed that objection vide its order dated 12th July, 1978 holding that the execution application was not maintainable as the decree being a nullity was incapable of execution. Against that order plaintiffs filed the Civil Revision No. 607 of 1978 in this court. The executing court had held, that the judgment-debtors had committed breach of conditions Nos. 2 and 3 laid down in the stay order dated 27th July, 1978 passed by the learned Civil Judge. The defendants, therefore, filed Civil Revision No. 704 of 1978.;