- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS application by the petitioner -judgment debtor is directed against the order dated 29.8.2006 passed by Sub -Judge -III, Deoghar in Execution Case No.1/2002 whereby he has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for dropping the execution proceeding. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff -decree holder filed a suit being No. 21/99 for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was decreed. Against the judgment and decree passed in the eviction suit, the petitioner preferred civil revision before this court being Civil Revision No. 380/2001. The said civil revision was heard and finally dismissed on 17.5.2002 and the judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed. The plaintiff -decree holder, thereafter, filed execution case no.1/2002 for executing the decree. The execution case remain pending for several years. Before the decree was executed, the decree holder transferred the suit premises alongwith the decree in favour of the respondent by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 19.9.2003. The transferee, thereafter, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 16 C.P.C. for impleading the decree holder and seeking relief to prosecute the execution case. The said application was allowed by the executing court in terms of order dated 23.1.2006. The petitioner thereafter, challenged the said order by filing civil revision no. 31/2006 before this Court. The civil revision was finally dismissed on 15.5.2006 holding that no error was committed by the executing court in allowing the transferee to execute the decree. It was only thereafter, the petitioner filed application on 21.8.2006 under section 151 CPC questioning maintainability of the execution proceeding on the ground that the decree for eviction obtained by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity in respect of the suit property could not have been transferred. The said petition was dismissed by the executing court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a review petition which too was dismissed. Hence this application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that in view of Section 17 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, the decree for eviction on the ground of personal necessity could not have been executed by the transferee of the decree. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get restoration of possession of the suit premises.;