( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of the suits filed by the appellant Chimanlal Narsibhai Patel against the respondents for the recovery of different amounts of compensation for the use of the suit premises as tenants. The suits were filed in City Civil Court Ahmedabad where they were registered as Civil Suits Nos. 448 and 449 of 1963. The said court has finally decreed both the suits but has rejected the plaintiffs claim for compensation for the period from 14th December 1957 to 30th April 1959 and therefore the plaintiffs claim only for this period remains to be considered in these appeals. Before the lower court there was a dispute between the parties as regards the rate of compensation but that dispute now does not survive as during the course of these appeals Shri Patel the learned advocate of the plaintiff has accepted the lower courts finding as regard the rate of compensation.

( 2 ) FOLLOWING are the brief facts which explain the background of the dispute between the parties.

( 3 ) THE property in question bears Municipal Census No. 84 to 84/4. This property originally belonged to one Kasturbhai Balabhai who had mortgaged it with one Vallabhdas Fulchand. The mortgagee then filed Civil Suit No. 229/52 against the mortgagor to recover the mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property. That suit was decreed and thereafter the mortgagee executed that decree by filing Darkhast No. 67/54 for the recovery of the decretal amount and interest by the sal of mortgaged property. The appellant of both these appeals who is hereafter referred to as the plaintiff was the highest bidder in the Court auction in those execution proceedings with the result that the sale of the suit property in his favour was knocked down on 14th December 1957 This sale was however made absolute under 0. 21 R. 92 C. P. C. as late as 30th April 1959 and a sale certificate contemplated by 0. 21 R. 94 C. P. C. was issued in his favour a few months thereafter i. e. on 15th September 1959.

( 4 ) IT is found that while the Darkhast proceedings were pending the judgment debtor Kasturbhai inducted the two respondents of these appeals who are hereinafter referred to as the defendants as the tenants of the second and third floors respectively of the disputed property. These defendants thereafter continued to pay rent to this judgment debtor Kasturbhai.

( 5 ) IT is found that on 28th March 1958 the plaintiff served the defendants with a notice that the sale of the suit property was knocked down in his favour and that they were inducted by the judgment debtor in the suit property as tenants malafide with a view to delay the delivery of the possession of the suit property to him. A similar application was also given by the plaintiff to the Court on the same date. Since the defendants did not pay any heed to this notice of the plaintiff the plaintiff filed civil Suit N. 3 890/59 which was renumbered in the Civil Court as Civil Suit No. 484/61. By this suit the plaintiff prayed for restraining defendants from paying rent to the judgment debtor Kasturbhai. The plaintiff also obtained an interim order in that suit directing the defendants to deposit future rent in court. The Court in that suit is found to have passed this interim order and accordingly the rent was deposited in Court by the defendants. It may however be noted that these proceedings were adopted after the sale became absolute on 30th April 1959.

( 6 ) INSPITE of the sale becoming absolute and the plaintiff having obtained a certificate contemplated by Rule 94 of 0. 21 C. P. C. the plaintiff could not obtain the actual possession of the suit premises. He therefore made an application for obtaining the actual delivery of the possession of the slit premises under 0. 21 R. 95 C. P. C. That application was registered as Misc. Application No. 71/59. It is not necessary to narrate the details as regards this application but it would be sufficient to state that in that application this Court event