- (1.) Affidavit of service, filed in Court today, be taken on record.
(2.) This revisional application has been filed by the decree-holder, complaining that Title Execution Case No. 15 of 2010 arising out of Title Suit No. 1293 of 2005 is pending before the learned 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, is not being disposed of for a long time.
(3.) It is the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel that by a judgment and decree dated 17th May, 2006 the suit filed by the present decree-holder being Title Suit No. 1293 of 2005 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant, inter alia, delivery of khas possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff-decree holder thereafter filed an application before the learned City Civil Court for execution of the said decree dated 17th May, 2006 which was numbered as Title Execution Case No. 72 of 2005. The said execution case having been dropped , the plaintiff-decree holder filed a fresh execution case being Title Execution Case No. 15 of 2010 which is at present pending before the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. During the pendency of the Title Execution case, the decree-holders by a deed of conveyance dated 23rd April, 2010 sold, conveyed and transferred the said premises together with their right, title and interest and benefit accrued in their favour pursuant to and in terms of the said decree dated 17th May, 2006 to the present petitioner for valuable consideration. The petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the learned Court below for granting leave to the petitioner to execute the decree in place and stead of the original petitioners on the strength of the deed of conveyance dated 23rd April, 2010. It has been submitted that on 28th February, 2011 an order was passed by the Registrar of the learned City Civil Court, Calcutta directing the Bailiff to execute the decree empowering him to remove any persons bound by the decree to give effect to the same. It is contended that time to time various occupants and sub-tenants under the original lessee have filed various Misc. Cases and resisted the execution of the decree. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that all persons including occupants, trespassers and/or other tenants inducted by the original lessee are bound by a decree passed by the original lessee in the aforesaid suit. In support of such contention the learned Senior Counsel referred to a judgment in the case of Shri Jagadguru Gurushiddaswami Guru Gangadharswami Murusavirmath Vs. The Dakshina Maharashtra Digambar Jain Sabha, 1953 AIR(SC) 514 which lays down a proposition of law that all persons in occupation are bound by the decree passed against their inducting landlord or superior landlord as the case may be. Paragraph 6 of the above referred judgment specifically lays down that "a sub-lessee would be bound by a decree for possession obtained by the lessor against the lessee, no matter whether the sub-lease was created before or after the suit, provided the eviction is based on a ground which determines the sub-lease".;