D.S.Tewatia, J.

1. Respondent Kewal Verma happens to be the tenant of Shiv Dayal, the petitioner herein Shri Shiv Dayal sought eviction of Shri Kewal Verma on ground which squarely fall within the provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973. Shri Kewal Verma, hereinafter referred to as `the tenant contested the petition. The Controller dismissed the same. When the appeal filed by Shri Shiv Dayval hereinafter referred to as `the landlord came up before the Appellate Authority for hearing of arguments both the parties made statements in court, so did their lawyers. As a result of the statements made by the parties the court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgement of the Rent Controller and by order dated 5th December, 1975 ordered the eviction of the tenant, but directed that the order for eviction shall not be executed till Ist July 1977.

2. When the landlord sought to execute the order of eviction, the tenant filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure and challenged the maintainability of the execution application on two grounds (i) that the rent had been increased from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- with effect f