- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. This revision was filed against an order dated 27th January, 1997 of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, allowing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was initial ly filed as First Appeal from Order, which was subsequently rightly converted in a civil revision.
(2.) SRI K. S; Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and SRI Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the opposite parties were heard on admission of this revision. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties did not prefer to file any counter-affidavit and with the consent of the parties counsel the revision is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. The brief facts are that a portion of Bunglow No. 13 which is part of the proper ty bearing Municipal No. 21/269 situated at Balkeshwar Road, Jivani Mandi Agra, was in occupation of the revisionists. According to the revisionists, they are tenants of the disputed portion whereas according to the opposite-parties, the revisionists are un authorised occupants and in any case they were licensees from the receiver appointed by the Civil Court in original Suit No. 76 of 1949 (Seth Loon Karan Sethia v. Capt. I. E. John ). In that suit Hira Lal Patni was defen dant No. 5 and the opposite-parties are the heirs of Hira Lal Patni. This suit was for recovery of money in which receiver was appointed by the Court. Another partition suit No. 31 of 1940 was instituted, but in this suit no receiver was appointed. Preliminary decree was passed in the partition suit and ultimately final decree was also passed on 16th July, 1964 (Annexure-IV ). In Original Suit No. 31 of 1940 (Gambhir Mai Pandey (P) Ltd. v. Nirmal Kumar Patni and others) Gambhir Mai Pandey was the plaintiff and Hira Lal Patni and others were the defen dants. Appeals were filed against the decree in Original Suit No. 76 of 1949 in this Court. One appeal was allowed by this Court and the other was dismissed. The matter went before the Apex Court. On 28th August, 1974 the Apx Court discharged the receiver under the; following order: "the receiver is discharged in respect of properties which are not the subject-matter of the decree passed by the High Court. " The two appeals were ordered by the Apex Court to be listed for hearing in November, 1974. Both the appeals were heard by Apex Court and ultimately Original Suit No. 76 of 1949 was dismissed which is a case reported in AIR 1977 SC 336. The suit was dismissed vide order dated 20th October, 1976. Consequent upon dismissal of the suit and order discharging the receiver passed by the Apex Court, request was made to the revisionists to vacate the accommodation, but they were avoiding. Ultimately, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whose copy is Annexure-1, was moved on 1st January, 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra, mentioning it to be an application arising under Suit No. 76 of 1949. Under this application the prayer was for a direc tion to the revisionists in this Court, to hand over possession and also to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month up to the date of delivery of possession.
(3.) OBJECTIONS were invited against this application. Rejoinder was also filed and after hearing the parties, the court below allowed the application and directed the revisionists to hand over possession of the accommodation within 5 months and also pay the arrears of rent with effect from 28th February, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 175 per month. It is this order which has been chal lenged in this revision.;