- (1.) The appellant before me is the Karnal Kaithal Co-operative Transport Society Limited which was in occupation of some rented land as defined in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under the respondent, namely Shri Digamber Jain Society (Registered), Karnal, at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. An application instituted by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the appellant from the rented land was dismissed by the Controller on 1st December, 1962. The respondent's appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 4th April, 1963. It went up to the High Court in revision and an order of ejectment was passed against the appellant on 4th September, 1964 on the ground that the respondent required the rented land bona fide for the construction of a building for a school to be run by it. The appellant was granted a month's time to remove the malba of the building constructed by it on the rented land and to deliver possession of the latter to the respondent. The appellant having failed to comply with the order on the expiry of the said period, the respondent took out execution thereof on 9th November, 1964. The appellant raised certain objections to the execution of the eviction order but they were overruled on 5th June, 1965. The appellant reiterated the objections in an appeal which was rejected on 7th May, 1966 when the parties were directed to appear in the executing Court on 13th May, 1966. On that date, however, the execution application was dismissed as unsatisfied and a fresh application for the same purpose was filed on the same day by the respondent.
(2.) On 13th May, 1966 itself, the appellant filed a suit (Exhibit D.H. 9) against the respondent for a declaration that the order of ejectment dated 4th September, 1964 was not binding on the appellant as it had been obtained by fraud. On 25th May, 1966 an interlocutory order was issued during the proceedings of that suit adjourning it to 15th June, 1966 for a reply by the respondent who duly filed the same. A replication (Exhibit J.D. 8) was put in on behalf of the appellant on 23rd June, 1966.
(3.) On 5th August, 1966 an application dated four days earlier was presented in the executing court above-mentioned stating that the order under execution had been satisfied or adjusted because of a compromise entered into between the parties on 19th May, 1966 according to which the respondent, through Shri Inder Sain Jain, Advocate, agreed to a fresh tenancy in respect of the rented land being created in favour of the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- with effect from 1st January, 1966. It was pleaded that a rent note had then been executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent, evidencing the new tenancy. It was prayed, therefore, that the execution case be dismissed.;