P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) THE dispute in this second appeal relates to house No. 968 -B. III, situate on Qilla Road in Rohtak. It was an evacuee property and Kesar Singh was in its occupation in 1949. In 1956, this house was auctioned and purchased by Ram Rang and his son Manohar Lal. On 9th November, 1957, it was provisionally transferred by the District Rent and Managing Officer in their favour and they were authorised to receive its rent from Kesar Singh with effect from that date. Subsequently, both of them served Kesar Singh with a notice terminating his tenancy and on 12th June, 1963, they brought a suit against him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Rohtak, for his ejectment. It may be stated that at the time the suit was instituted, this property, being evacuee property, was exempt from the operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
(2.) A decree for ejectment was passed against Kesar Singh by the trial Court on 29th September, 1964. Kesar Singh's appeal against the said decree was dismissed on 24th March, 1965, in view of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Under that compromise, Kesar Singh was allowed to vacate the premises on or before 30th September, 1966. Since he did not do so, Ram Rang and his son Manohar Lal applied for the execution of the ejectment decree on 1st October, 1966. 3 Kesar Singh filed objections against the said execution saying that sale certificate had been issued in favour of Ram Rang and his son Manohar Lal on 9th October, 1964, with the result that the property was no longer exempt from the operation of the Rent Act with effect from that date. By the issue of the sale certificate, title in the property passed to the purchasers and it ceased to be evacuee property. The ejectment decree passed by the Civil Court could, therefore, not be executed against him.
(3.) On 30th April, 1968, the trial Court dismissed this objection holding that the ejectment decree was executable, because when it was passed, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to deal with the property, as the same was evacuee property at that time and exempt from the operation of the Rent Act. The decree was passed by a competent Court and, therefore, it did not cease to be executable. It was also held that Kesar Singh, judgment -debtor, was estopped by his conduct from raising any such objection, because he himself got time for vacating the premises and did not say at that time that the decree could not be passed by the Civil Court.;