SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) INSTANT revision impugns the order dated March 31. 1997 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2 Jaipur City whereby the application under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. of the judgment -debtor petitioner (for short, the judgment debtor) was dismissed.
(2.) SUIT for eviction in respect of suit property was decreed by the Trial Court on March 16, 1981 infavour or the decree holder non -petitioner (for short the decree holder). The appeal of the judgment debtor was dismissed by the first appellate Court on December 22, 1981. Thereafter the judgment debtor preferred second appeal which was also dismissed on May 4, 1982. This Court granted nine months time to the judgment debtor on furnishing under taking to vacate suit premises in the interest of justice. The order of this Court was called in question by the judgment debtor before the Supreme Court by filing petition for special leave to appeal (Civil) No. 7531/1983. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal leave petition vide order dated August 4, 1986. Instead of vacating the suit premises pursuance to the undertaking furnished by him seeking nine months time, the judgment debtor raised objections in the execution proceedings by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. In the application the judgment debtor averred that the decree holder Waqf Board through Mohd. Ibrahim entered into a fresh tenancy agreement in respect of. the suit premises with effect of January 1, 1986. during the pendency of special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The rent of the suit premises was increased from Rs. 15/ - to Rs. 125/ - per month. Increased rent was paid to the decree holder on Feb. 3, 1986 through receipt No. 32 signed by the authorised representative of the Board Shri Mohd. Ibrahim. The rent thereafter was regularly paid and the judgment debtor had no cause to pursue the special leave petition and that lead dismissed of the said petition on August 4. 1986. It was also pleaded that the execution petition was barred by time and Mohd. Ibrahim had no authority to initiate execution proceedings. The application was supported by affidavit of Yashin.
(3.) THE decree holder denied the averments by filing reply supported by affidavit of Mohd. Ibrahim.;