MADAN CHAND GULECHA Vs. SURJAN SINGH SADANA AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for eviction of opposite party Nos. 9 and 10 from a building was filed by opposite party No. 1 (M/s. Surjan Singh Sadana and Sons), a registered partnership firm. During the pendency of the suit, opposite party Nos. 9 and 10 sub-let the suit premises to the petitioners and they were added as defendants in that suit (Title Suit No. 668 of 1968). The suit was decreed by the trial court Thereafter Madan Chand Gulecha and others (the tenants) filed Title Appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 50 of 1971. That appeal was dismissed Thereafter the tenants filed second oppeal being Second Appeal No. 19 of 1975 in this Court. As that was not pressed, it was dismissed. After dismissal of the title appeal, the firm filed Money Suit No. 222 of 1972 for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed and the amount was paid.

(2.) When the aforesaid title appeal was pending, the firm filed an application for execution of the decree. That was registered as Execution Case No. 421 of 1972. On 23-7-1975 a petition was filed on behalf of the Gulecha Brothers which was signed by Darsan Singh Sadana on one hand and Guman Chand Gulecha on the other. Darsan Singh signed it as a partner of the firm, namely, M/s. Surjan Singh Sadana & Sons. Darsan Singh, is opposite party No. 5 in this application. In that application, one of the terms was that the firm of Gulecha Brothers (petitioners herein) will remain in the suit premises as monthly tenant from July, 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. An objection was filed by opposite-party Nos. 4 and 7 to that petition and they disputed the creation of tenancy in favour of Gulecha Brothers. On that very date another application was filed by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 (Sushila Kaur and Pratap Singh) which was registered as Misc. Case No. 63 of 1976. By the order which is impugned in this application dated 4-12-1984, the court below refused to record that the decree had been adjusted in terms of the compromise petition filed on 23-7-1975. The compromise petition was rejected.

(3.) Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the execution petition filed by the firm, Surjan Singh Sadana & Sons, was signed by Darsan Singh, one of the partners. He, therefore, gave out that he was competent to represent the firm and on the basis of this, he urged, that since Darsan Singh signed the petition, the firm and all its partners were bound by it. The court below, according to him, was bound to record the adjustment and dismiss the execution case. Alternatively he urged that if the firm had been reconstituted, Darsan Singh became one of the co-sharers with regard to the property in suit and as there was no registered instrument by which he was divested of the title in the suit property he was competent to adjust the decree.