Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) ON 30th December, 1974 an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller in favour of Santokh Singh against Amar Singh. On 20th January, 1977 the decree holder took out execution. The judgment -debtor took various objections but he clearly stated that he bad delivered possession of the premises to the decree -holder on 5th June, 1975 in presence of his brothers and the averment of the decree holder that when bailiff went to deliver the possession, the judgment debtor made protest was wrong because question of raising any protest by the judgment -debtor did not arise as he was not in possession of the premises as possession had already been delivered to the decree holder on 5th June, 1975. That execution application was finally dismissed on 22nd January, 1983 on two counts. (i) because the decree holder was absent on 19th, 20th and 21st January, 1983 in spite of the fact that he was directed to accompany the bailiff for taking possession; and (ii) that when Bailiff visited the spot on 21st January, 1983 he found that the shop had been demolished and only Khola (building in dilapidated condition without roof) was in existence. The executing Court in view of the second point came to the conclusion that the corpus of the demised premises had ceased to exist and the execution application had become infructuous. He further concluded that the possession of the site could not be delivered to the decree -holder because this was not within the scope of the ejectment order. As regards the demolition of the shop the decree holder was advised to claim damages. Consequently, the file was consigned to the record -room. The decree -holder has come to this Court in revision.
(2.) THE judgment -debtor is not present, in spite of the fact that actual date notices have been issued. The report on the summons is that he left the premises 5/6 years ago. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the decree -holder, I find that it will meet the ends of justice if he is allowed to take possession of the Khola or the vacant site as the position may be at the spot today, without the assistance of the Court. If he finds no obstruction or hindrance in taking possession of the premises in dispute, he will get into its possession and will report about this fact to the Executing Court. In case he finds any hindrance he will apply to the Executing Court after giving the detailed facts and the Executing Court will issue warrant of possession and will get possession of the premises as it may be in existence at the time of delivery of possession, whether vacant site or with Khola thereon. I am not in agreement with the Executing Court that in case the building had been partly or wholly demolished by the time the possession had to be delivered, execution had become infructuous or it was not within the competence of the Executing Court to deliver possession thereof. The Executing Court read the ejectment order to mean for delivery of possession of the shop only but that would have included the delivery of possession of the site, underneath as well. In case shop was wholly or partly demolished, then possession of the vacant site had to be delivered so that the relationship of landlord and tenant regard to the entire premises ceases to exist and the landlord comes in possession thereof. If this is not done then the site will be deemed to have remained in possession of the ejected tenant and if the landlord is not allowed the assistance to take the possession through the Executing Court, then the only remedy left with him would be to file a fresh suit in Civil Court or to file another application for ejectment. It is well settled by now that multiplicity of proceedings has to be avoided as far as possible.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the order of the Court below is set aside and is substituted by the direction given above. In the result the revision stands allowed with no order as to costs.;