JUDGMENT - N. P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri V.S. Bedre for the petitioners and Shri. R.N. Dhorde for respondent No. 4. Rest of the respondents are served.

2. Narhari Maruti Udavant-respondent landlord had filed a civil suit bearing R.C.S. No. 206/1978 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. Bhikchand Nahar was the original tenant and Ramchandra, Kantilal and Shantilal-sons of Bhikchand, Dhanabai-wife of Bhikchand and Surjabai-daughter of Bhikchand were joined as defendants in that suit. On 23rd September, 1981, consent terms were filed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, by which it was agreed by the parties to the consent terms that the suit premises is in possession of defendant No. 1 alone and other defendants have no concern with it and their names may be deleted from the array of the defendants. It was also agreed that the premises should be continued in possession of defendant No. 1 for a further period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. It was also specifically agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 that this concession does not create a new tenancy and should not be interpreted as a new contract and the defendant will handover the vacant possession of the premises on 3rd October, 1986 in absence of any new contract with the plaintiff.

3. An execution petition was filed on 23rd March, 1988 contending that the defendant did not comply with the terms of the decree and has not vacated the premises on 3rd October, 1986. Therefore, the possession of the premises was sought for. In this Regular Darkhast No. 26 of 1988, the Judgement debtor No. 1 Ramchandra and No. 5 Dhanabai filed different objection petitions and resisted the relief of possession. Ramchandra-Judgment debtor No. 1- contended that the consent terms recorded, were beyond the scope of the suit and, therefore, no decree could have been passed under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second contention raised was that the consent terms created a fresh lease and that lease has not been terminated by giving a proper notice under the Transfer of Property Act. It was also contended that the fresh lease is for a period of five years and, therefore, it is compulsorily registrable under sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Objection petitioner contended that other defendants who are in possession alongwith defendant No. 1 have not signed the consent terms and, therefore, decree is inexecutable. The defendant No. 4 Dhanabai contended that the premises was in possession or her husband Bhikchand as a tenant and after his death, his heirs namely; the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in possession as tenants. She also contended that she has not signed the consent terms and, therefore, the decree is not binding on her.

4. The learned Judge of the Executing Court was pleased to reject the objection petitions and issued warrant of possession under Order 21, Rule 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide his order dated 21st March, 1990. The said order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Application.

5. Shri V. S. Bedre, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised following points for consideration objecting the execution of the decree:-

(i) That there were five defendants in the suit and the consent was filed by only one of the defendants. Therefore, no effective decree could have been passed suit.

(iii) Fresh contract of the lease is created by the consent terms which has not been properly terminated and, therefore, the decree is inexecutable.

(iii) The trial Judge should have been allowed the objection of Dhanabai since she was not a party to the consent terms and was very much entitled to protect her possession as tenant of the suit premises.

(iv) Proper notice was not given by the learned trial Judge under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Shri R. N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-original landlord-contended that b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document