JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:- Special leave is granted.

2. The appellant is the daughter and heir of Shripat Tukaram Jadhav, since deceased, who was in possession as a tenant of a portion of a building belonging to the respondent No. 3. The respondent filed a suit for eviction of Shripat on the ground that he needed the building for demolition and for reconstruction of a new one, which was disposed of by a compromise between the parties. According to the consent decree the tenant had to vacate the premises, and the respondent-landlord undertook to complete the reconstruction of the new building with a reasonable period and "to give possession of an identical (equal) area as in the original premises to the defendant, on a, monthly rental and the defendant will have a right to an identical area in the new building". The decree further stated thus:-

"The right of the defendant to an identical area is an essential condition to this compromise".

Accordingly the tenant vacated the premises in 1966 and the respondent No. 3 proceeded with the erection of the new building. However, the essential term of the compromise, entitling the tenant to the equivalent area therein was not respected by the respondent in spite of service of a notice served in this regard in November, 1967. Ultimately the tenant made an application for restoration of possession which was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The tenant took the matter to the first appellate Court and thereafter to the High Court in Civil Application No. 1819/ 70; and while it was pending he died, and his heirs were substituted.

3. It was seriously contended on behalf of the respondent that the decree was not executable which was overruled by the High Court by its judgment dated 17-7-1975. However, it was further held that the appropriate remedy of the tenant was by way of execution of the consent decree, and the case was accordingly remanded to the trial Court with a direction that the proceedings initiated by the tenant would be treated as execution proceeding. The matter, thus, once more came before the first Court for the purpose of execution of the consent decree, in the proceeding which was renumbered as Execution Case No. 1591/75.

4. In the meantime, the respondent No. 3 inducted the present respondents 1 and 2 in the new building who resisted the delivery of possession, necessitating the appellant to file an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, out of which the present appeal arises and which was registered as miscellaneous application No. 696/ 78.

5. The application was opposed by the landlord judgment-debtor as well as the obstructionists on the basis of a large number of frivolous grounds, including the plea that the decree being vague was not executable, The small cause court rejected the objections correctly, pointing out to the decision of the High Court in Civil Application No. 1819/70 and holding that neither the landlord nor his nominees were entitled to reagitate the questions finally settled by the High Court in favour of the appellant.

6. The obstructionists, however, did not give up and carried the matter in appeal before the District Judge, Pune, once more raising several technical grounds against the maintainability of the proceeding which were rejected by the District Judge. Two writ petitions, thereafter, were filed by the obstructionists and another person, all claiming to have been inducted by the respondent No. 3 in the new building as tenants. The High Court dismissed all the grounds raised in the writ petitions in view of the earlier findings of the High Court in Civil Application No. 1819/70, except one, namely, whether the decree could be executed by ejecting the writ petitioners from the areas in their possession.

7. After referring to the report of the Commissioner, appointed by the executing Court, and other materials the High Court observed that the available evidence on the record did not pos