TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) THE appeal and the civil revisional application have been moved against the same judgment and order passed on 28th May, 1999 by Shri A. Barua, Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in two Misc. Cases being Misc. Case No. 2609 of 1997 and Misc. Cases No. 2185 of 1997. Misc. Case No. 2609 of 1997 arose out of an application filed by the decree holders Shri Tapan Kr. Shaw and Damodar Shaw under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders for grant of police help for execution of the decree of eviction passed against the respondent No. 1 from the premises in question viz. permises No. 7 Old Court House Corner, Calcutta. But the real challenge is of the judgement debtor/respondent No. 1 Nawab Dutta who came to thwart the execution of the aforesaid decree for eviction by filing an objection under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure inviting the executing Court to hold that the decree being a nullity was void and, therefore, not executable.
(2.) BEFORE we proceed further, we may note that this case reminds us of the Privy Council dictum that "Trouble starts of the decree holder only after the decree is passed" which shall be squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, it is necessary for us to state the facts leading to filing of this appeal and the revisional application which are as follows :- Raj Kumar Shaw (deceased) was the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Ranjit Kumar Dutta (again deceased) was the predecessor-in- interest of the judgement-debtor/respondent. The father of the appellants-Raj Kr. Shaw (deceased) inducted the father of the judgment-debtor/respondent as a lessee by a deed of lease dated 8th October, 1956, in respect of the suit premises. By the deed of lease, the judgement-debtor/respondent No. 1 was holding as a lessee in respect of the one room, privy and bath room in the ground floor of premises No. 7 Old Court House Corner, Calcutta. The lease was initially for 15 years commencing from 1st of October, 1956 and terminating on 30th November, 1971, at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- payable according to English calendar month, with an option, on the part of the lessee to renew the same for a further period of 15 years. The lease also provided inter alia, that if the lessee was desirous of having the lease renewed for a further period of 15 years, the lessee shall, at least three calendar months before the expiration of the term thereby granted, give the lessor in writing a notice of his intention to make such renewal of the lease and the lessor shall be bound to renew the same at the cost of the lessee. The decree holders/appellants intimated the judgement-debtor/respondent No. 1 on 17th April, 1986, about the expiry of the lease period of 30 years and called upon the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 to deliver up peaceful possession of the premises in question to them on the expiry of the renewed period, that is, on the expiry of 30th September, 1986. On the expiry of 30 years, the appellants filed a suit for eviction against the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 from the premises in question on the ground that the lease had expired by efflux of time. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on the ground of expiry of lease. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before this Court which came to be registered as F.A. No. 149 of 1994. The first Appeal came up for hearing before B.L. Jain and Siddheswar Narayan, JJ. (as their Lordships then were) for final disposal. There was a difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges on the qestions dealt within the said decision, and accordingly the appeal was referred to by the Hon'ble Chief Justice a third Judge, Vidyanand, J. (as His Lordship then was) before whom the appeal was referred by the learned Chief Justice of this Court finally dismissed the appeal of the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, the judgment-debtor/respondent No. 1 filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9th of July, 1997, by passing the following order :- "In the facts of this case we are satisfied that the petitioner/tenant has been able to protract the litigation unduly and thereby has derived considerable benefit already. We find no merit in the Special Leave Petition and, therefore, it is dismissed." We consider it necessary also to observe that in the view of the attitude of the petitioner evident on the facts of this case, it is necessary that the concerned court would take all necessary steps for an expeditious execution of the decree passed against the petitioner which has become final." (Emphasis added)
(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the passing of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition, a review application was made by the judgement-debtor/respondent No. 1 before the Supreme Court. The said review petition was also rejected by the Supreme Court on 1st day of October, 1997 by the following order :- "We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. We find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed." ;