GOPAL KRISHNA SHARMA, J.—This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 15th Jan.. 81, by which he confirmed the judgment passed by the Munsif, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 24th May, 80.

2. Birdhichand and Jankivallabh filed a suit for rent and ejectment against Parmanand and others, claiming rent on the basis of Rs. 20/-, before the Munsif. During the pendency of the said suit, the parties entered into a compromise on 17th Jan. 68, and it was agreed that the defendants would pay Rs. 30/- per month as rent, w.e.f. 1st Mar. 67, and it was further agreed by the defendants that they would vacate the premises in dispute by the end of 1970. On the basis of this compromise, the learned Munsif, on 9th Feb. 68, decreed the suit. Thereafter, decree-holder Birdhichand and judgment-debtor Parmanand expired. An execution - petition was filed by Jankivallabh and the legal representatives of Birdhichand, against the petitioner Devdutta Dheer, who is legal representative of deceased Parmanand. An objection-petition was filed by (he petitioner, and it was objected that there was a fresh contract of tenancy executed between the parties, and it was agreed that the defendants would pay Rs. 30/-per month as rent, and that the defendant agreed to vacate the suit-premises at the end of 1970, and so, the decree was not executable. It was argued by him that the decree-holder should have filed a fresh suit for ejectment. It was also objected that the petitioner had paid Rs. 30/- per month as rent even for the year 1970 and the decree-holder had accepted that rent. Thus, according to the petitioner, a fresh relationship of landlord and tenant had been created, and so, the decree-holder was estopped to execute the decree.

3. The learned Munsif, after hearing both the sides, rejected the objections raised by the judgment-debtor-petitioner. Then, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, vide his judgment dated 15th Jan. 81. Against that judgment, the present revision petition has been preferred.

4. Mr. J. S. Rastogi on behalf of the petitioner argued that the learned lower court had no jurisdiction to order execution of the decree when there was no decree for eviction. According to him, there was no direction for delivery of possession by execution through court, and the decree was a declaratory decree. So, the same was not executable. It was also argued by him that both the parties had entered into a fresh contract of lease. Previously, the rent was at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month and later on, by this agreement, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 30/- per month as rent. So, the defendant had agreed to pay an increased rent, and he simply gave an undertaking that he would vacate the suit-premises at the end of 1970. So, according to Mr. Rastogi, a fresh contract was entered into between the parties, and on the basis of this fresh contract, a regular suit for ejectment, should have been filed.

5. Mr. Rastogi has also argued that after the passing of the decree, the defendant continued to pay rent to the decree-holder, which was accepted by him. So, the tenancy continued. Even after 1970, Mr. Rastogi argued, the petitioner continued to pay rent to the decree-holder, and hence, on the basis of this decree, the petitioner cannot be ejected. Regarding the receipts of rent paid after 1970, it was argued that the learned lower court has misread and misconstrued the receipts. The said receipts were clearly receipts for rent, and there is no evidence on the record to show that the same were received for amount for use and occupation.

6. In support of his argument, Mr. Rastogi has relied on a number of case-laws of various High Courts.

7. In Kanmal vs. Hukamchand(l), which is a division bench judgment, a decree was passed on the basis of a compromise under O. 23, R. 3, C.P.C. It was observed therein as under:-

"In other words, matters extraneo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document