( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under Sec. 29 of the Bombay rent Act, 1947 against the order of the revisional Court dismissing the revision of the revisionist against the order of the Executing Court. The Executing Court held that the objections to the executability of the decree raised by the revisionist were not sustainable and the decree was neither nullity nor illegal, hence it could be executed.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the disputed premises was let out by the respondent on rs. 55/- p. m. to the defendant. The defendant did not pay rent from 1-10-1968 to 31-5-1969, i. e. , for a period of eight months hence registered notice of demand and eviction was sent on 19-6-1969. Notice was served on the tenant-defendant. Neither the premises was vacated nor the arrears of rent were paid. Hence, the suit for eviction was filed on 20-8-1969.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that his father was the tenant and upon his death all his heirs became co-tenants, and since they were not impleaded the suit was not maintainable. It was admitted that the rent could not be paid after receipt of notice on 28-6-1969. However, it was said that the rent was tendered by the telegraphic money order on 27-7-1969 but it was not accepted by the landlord. The dispute regarding standard rent was also raised and it was pleaded to be Rs. 25. 00 p. m.

( 4 ) EVIDENCE of the parties was recorded in the suit and finally before delivering the judgment on merits of the case a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 25-11-1970. The suit was accordingly decreed in terms of the compromise. There were three main stipulations in the compromise. The first was that the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,600. 00 towards arrears of rent upto 31- 12-1970 and costs of the suit. Out of this amount the plaintiff received Rs. 1,320/ - deposited in the Court. Balance of Rs. 280. 00 was to be paid by 31-12-1970. The second stipulation was that the defendant was to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff by 30-6-1978. The third stipulation was that because of addition and alteration made by the plaintiff in the suit premises the rent was nominally enhanced and agreed to be enhanced by the parties at Rs. 60. 00 per month and this enhanced rent was to be paid with effect from 1-1-1971. The compromise was read over to the parties. They admitted the terms of compromise whereupon decree was passed by the trial Court.

( 5 ) THE said decree was put to execution because the defendant failed to vacate the premises after eight years, viz. , after time for vacation given in the compromise.

( 6 ) THE defendant judgment-debtor raised objection in the execution proceedings raising contention that there was fresh contract of tenancy and unless it was terminated afresh the defendant could not be evicted in the execution proceedings. The second objection was that the compromise decree was nullity because grounds for granting decree for possession under the Rent Act were not existing and the third objection regarding compromise and ordering for eviction was that the Court was not satisfied that any ground for eviction under Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Act existed. The executing Court did not find favour with these objections. It observed that there was sufficient material on record to show that the Court was satisfied that there was statutory ground for eviction of the tenant.

( 7 ) A revision was preferred against the order of the Executing Court which too was dismissed, hence this second revision under Sec. 29 of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 8 ) SECTION 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, is not at all applicable to the instant revision. It provides that no further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under sub-sec. (1) but the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal was according to law, call for the record of the case in which such decision was taken and pass such order with respec