JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:

The trustees of N.M. Petit Charity Fund filed Ejectment Application No. 155/E of 1967 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1947 against Mrs. Meherbai B. Irani for possession of the premises given on leave and licence. In the said proceedings, a settlement took place between the parties and consent terms were filed before the Court of Small Causes and an order in terms of the consent terms was finally passed in the said matter.

The relevant consent terms read as under :

"1. Ejectment application allowed and the respondent is ordered and decreed to handover quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the application premises to the applicants.

2. However, on the respondent regularly paying the licence fee and upon his giving an undertaking to the effect that he would not transfer, sub-let, under let and/or in any way part with possession of the application premises and further that he would abide by the terms and conditions enumerated by the applicants, the execution of the aforesaid decree to be stayed.

3. The respondent further agrees and undertakes that he would accept and shift to any other suitable alternate accommodation if the trustees desire him to do so in carrying out the larger interest of the trust.

3-A. The deceased respondent had deposited licence fee in Court. In view of the consent terms, the money lying deposited in Court may be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent 1-A."

3. So, Rohinton B. Irani continued in possession of the premises. However, Rohinton B. Irani expired on 21-2-1996 and thereafter execution petition was filed on behalf of the trust before the Court of Small Causes, being Miscellaneous Notice No. 214 of 1996 in Ejectment Application No. 155/E of 1967. In the said proceedings, the present petitioner widow of Rohinton B. Irani raised objection with respect to maintainability of that execution proceedings. The main contention was that the execution petition was not signed by all the trustees of the trust and it was signed by the Secretary of the Trust Shri A.P. Master who had no authority to sign the execution petition. However, this contention of the present petitioners was turned down by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. A revision application preferred against that order. The revision also came to be dismissed on 14-3-1997.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that because of the consent terms filed in the original Ejectment Application No. 155/E of 1967, a new licence was created in favour of Rohinton B. Irani and the present petitioner being widow of Shri Rohinton B. Irani, she has acquired all the rights under the licence created in favour of Shri Rohinton B. Irani. So Ejectment Application No. 155/E of 1967 is not maintainable.

5. It is also argued that the execution proceedings ought to have been signed by all the trustees and that the Secretary of the trust cannot represent the trust to file execution proceedings. In support of this contention reliance is placed on section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

6. The consent terms clearly indicate that the trust had obtained a decree for ejectment against the original licensor. However, the execution of the decree was postponed because of the second term in the consent terms. It may be stated that because of the second term, Shri Rohinton B. Irani became a licensor. However that does not mean that the right to execute the decree was wiped out. If there are circumstances giving rise to execute the decree in favour of the decree-holder, then on the basis of the consent terms, the execution petition can be filed and it would be maintainable.

7. So far as the question as to who should sign the execution proceedings and who should verify the execution proceedings is concerned, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are most relevant. The r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document