- (1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal against the judgment and decree of the First Ad ditional Civil Judge, Meerut, rejecting the objections under Section 47, C.P.C. filed by the judgment- debtor-appellants. The plaintiff decree-holder (hereinafter referred to as" the decree-holder) filed suit No. 106 of 1970 for ejectment, re covery of arrears of rent and damages against the judgment-debtor- appellants (hereinafter referred to as judgment-deb tors) on the ground that Ashok Kumar, judgrnent- debior No. 1-was the tenant of the premises of a shop on the monthly rent of Rs. 73. He illegally sub-let the said shop to the judgment-debtor-appel lant No. 1. It was alleged that since the said sub-letting was illegal, therefore, these two judgment-debtors were liable to eviction. The suit was contested by the "judgment-debtors, by means of a joint written statement. It was alleged that initially the shop had been let out to Ashok Kumar and Kailash Chand. Kailash Chand left the partnership business, which was carried on in the premises and thereafter iudgment-debtpr Mahipal start ed doing it in partnership with Ashok Kumar, the other judgment-debtor. Ac cording to the case further taken in the written statement it was pleaded by judgment-debtors that this taking of Mahipal in partnership by Ashok Kumar was in the knowledge of decree-holders. Accordingly, the decree-holder could not get the eviction on the basis of the said alleged sub-letting.
(2.) THE trial court, thereafter, re corded the statements of the parties under Order X, Rule 2, C.P.C Mahipal in this statement could not give any satisfactory explanation relating to his possession in the property. He only as serted that he was in possession of some of the receipts executed in the joint names of himself and Ashok Kumar. Kanhaiya Lal. decree-holder, denied giv ing of any receipt in tne names of Ashok Kumar and Mahipal. It is correct that the judgment-debtors had denied the allega tions of illegal cub-letting as was alleged by the decree-holder but after the state ments were recorded it was clear thai they did not have any substantial de fence effectively repelling the case of the decree-holders relating to sub-letting. Having so found the judgment-debtors entered into a compromise with the de cree-holders. The compromise was as follows:- "Shriman Ji, Sewa me nivedan hai ki baham pha-rikain tasfiya ho gaya hai ki dawa badi-garn waste dakhal wa bakava kirava wa waslat wasarh 75.00 pachattar rupai mah-war ke hisab tavon dakhal decree kar diva jawe. Lekin agar pratiwadigarn ba-kaya kiraya 115.00 rupiya mutdaviya wa waslat 17-1-70 se 16- 7-71 tak wasarah Rs. 75.00 mahwar vani kul 1462-50 paise do barakar ki chamahi kisto me (yarn 731-25 paise 15-1-72 tak wa 731.50 paise 15-7-72 tak ada kar denga, - aur 16-7-72 se ainda kiraya 100.00 rupiya mahawar mah wa mah barabar ada karte rahenge to pratiwadigarn dono kirayedaran mane jayenge aur decree ada wa bebak samjhi jayegi aui ayisi surat me wadigarn da khal bhi nabi lenge. Agar D.ratiwadi in bato uprokj, rne se kishi bhi bat ko poora karne me kami karenge to decreedaran ko fauraiT decree xari karane ka adhikar ho jaye.Ca aur i'.v rivavete uoar likhi aai hai wah b'n: khatand.m sarnjhi jawegi. Kharcha farikain apna 2 swam bardast karenge. Kanhaiya Lal wa Mahabir Prasad. Wadigarn. Shri Ashok Kumar wa Mahipal, Pratiwadigarn. Dt: 16-7- 1971." In the end it was provided that In case the judgment-debtors complied with all the conditions of the compromise regularly and properly, In that event the judgment-debtors would not. be ejected. The judgment-debtors deposited Re. 500 In all upto 23rd of December, 1971. They did not admittedly either pay or deposit the first six monthly Instalment of Rupees 731/25 p. payable by them on 15th of January. 1972. Consequently the decree-holder filed the application for execution on 11-2-1972 In the executIng court. The judgment-debtors filed an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. contestIng the execution. They alleged that .a new ten ancy had come Into existence as a result of the compromise entered Into between the parties on the 16th of July, 1971. In support of this argument it was further pleaded that the payment of Rs. 100 as rent per month In stead oi Rs. 75, w'rv.eh was beIng previously paid, the judgment-debtors had acquired new tenancy rights, therefore, they could not be ejected In pursuance of the decree obtaIned on the 16th of July. 1971.
(3.) THE execution court allowed the objection under Section 47 holding that the old relationship of landlord and tenant between the judgment-debtors and decree-holders got extinguished on the 16th of July, 1971. A new tenancy had come into existence on this date, there fore, the execution was not maintainable.;