YADAV, J. - (1.) THIS revision which arises out of an execution proceedings following upon a decree in a suit for ejectment has a chequered history. The non petitioner-land lord-decree holder Babu Lal filed a suit for ejectment under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 17 of 1950) on 26. 2. 1976 on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground that the premises in dispute was required reasonably and bonafidely by him and members of his family. In the aforesaid eviction suit filed by plaintiff land lord decree holder the defendant was described as `shree Mahaveer Uchcha Prathmik Vidhyalaya Sardar Sahar through Mantri Mahodaya Shri Sanwal Ram S/o Shri Chandi Prasad resident of Sardarsahar. ' During the pendency of the aforesaid suit a compromise was entered into between the land lord decree holder and defendant before the learned trial court and a compromise decree was passed on 11. 11. 1980.
(2.) IT is revealed from perusal of the record that although the tenant Sanwal Ram submitted to the compromise decree dated 11. 11. 1980 yet his son Mahaveer filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC against the compromise decree dated 11. 11. 1980 alleging himself to be Secretary of Mahaveer Uchcha Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Sardar Sahar. The learned first appellate court on 2. 8. 1985 set aside the compromise decree passed by the learned trial court and remanded the case back to it with a direction to examine and reconsider the validity of the compromise decree after applying its mind to the mandatory provisions contemplated under Sec. 13 of the Act No. 17 of 1950. The learned first appellate court also made it clear that the parties were not required to adduce evidence. When the record was received by the learned trial court with the aforesaid direction, pursuant to the remand order dated 2. 8. 85, after analytical discussion, it arrived at a conclusion that the compromise entered into between the plaintiff land lord decree holder and defendant was lawful and valid within the meaning of Sec. 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 hence again passed a decree for ejectment on 7. 2. 1987. It is revealed that again the tenant defendant Sanwal Ram submitted to the decree dated 7. 2. 1987 passed by the learned trial court but his son Mahaveer has filed an appeal under Sec. 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 7. 2. 1987 alleging himself to be Secretary of the School. In appeal the learned first appellate court thoroughly re-examined the evidence available on record and affirmed the finding of the learned trial court to the effect that the premises was let out to Sanwal Ram by late Smt. Hukma Devi in the year 1957 upon which the tenant had subsequently established a School namely Mahaveer Uchacha Vidhyalaya for earning of his livelihood. While coming to the above conclusion the learned first appellate court also examined the validity of the compromise entered into between the decree holder-land lord-plaintiff and his tenant defendant Sanwal Ram. The learned first appellate court was satisfied about the existence of grounds for ejectment enumerated under clause (a) and clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of Act No. 1950 therefore it affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court on 7. 2. 1987. It is further borne out from perusal of the record that although Mahaveer, the son of the tenant Sanwal Ram submitted to the decree passed by the learned first appellate court yet his son Mahendra Kumar, grand son of Sanwal Ram, (who is the present revisionist) filed a second appeal alleging himself to be Secretary of Mahaveer Uchcha Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Sardar Sahar. However, the second appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 24. 5. 1996 holding that neither Mahaveer nor his son Mahendra Kumar, the present revisionist, had any locus standi to file the appeal against the compromise decree dated 11. 11. 1980. Both of them were not proved to be the Secretary of the Mahaveer Uchcha Prathamik Vidhayalya, Sardar Sahar. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of the second appeal on 24. 5. 1996, the present revisionist filed a Special Leave to Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court but it was also dismissed on 12. 7. 96 affirming the judgment rendered by this Court in second appeal.
(3.) WHEN the execution proceedings were initiated by the land lord decree holder-non petitioner for delivery of possession on the basis of compromise decree dated 11. 11. 1980 the present revisionist refused to vacate the premises in dispute on the ground that the decree is executable against judgment debtor alone and the revisionist moved an objection under Sec. 47 CPC which was rejected by the learned executing court on 22. 7. 1996. It is pertinent to mention here that against the rejection of his objection under Sec. 47 CPC on 22. 7. 1996 the revisionist has not filed any revision therefore the order dated 22. 7. 1996 has attained finality. Undaunted with rejection of his objection under Sec. 47 CPC on 22. 7. 1996 the revisionist filed second objection under Sec. 47 CPC opposing execution of decree on the ground that it is not executable against the School which too was dismissed by executing court on 17. 8. 1996 against which the present revision has been filed. On 18. 3. 1999 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the present revision was ordered to be listed for final disposal at admission stage. Arguments were heard on 13. 7. 99 which remained inconclusive. The record of S. B. C. Second Appeal No. 155/95, which was decided between the same parties on 24. 5. 1996, was ordered to be tagged along with the revision. The learned counsel appearing on both sides were directed to point out the relevant provisions of law under which a decree upheld upto the Supreme Court can be made inexecutable or executable against the revisionist who has filed second appeal before this Court and Special Leave to Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. S. N. Sharma filed the order passed by Apex Court on 12. 7. 1996 dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal which was ordered to be placed on the record of this revision. From the perusal of memo of Second Appeal No. 155/1995 and the concession made by the learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. Sharma indisputably the Second Appeal and the Special Leave to Appeal both were filed by the present revisionist. After dismissal of the Second Appeal by this Court on 24. 5. 1996 a decree is prepared against the present revisionist yet it is being claimed that the decree is not executable against the revisionist School. However, instead of pointing out the relevant provisions under which the present decree is alleged to be not executable against the present revisionist, the learned counsel on both sides had filed their written arguments which are made part of the record. ;