JUDGMENT :- This second appeal of the decree-holder arises out of an execution proceeding taken for delivery of possession by eviction of the judgment-debtor from a Cinema building known as Chitra Talkies in the city of Haradwar. In order to appreciate the controversy arising in this appeal it is necessary to refer to certain facts.

The decree-holder M/s. Chitra Talkies (Buildings) is a registered partnership. Its original partners were Mahant Shankaranand having 5/16 share, Achroo Ram 3/16 share, D. P. Chopra 5/32 share, B. L. Chopra 5/32 share and Sansar Chand Goel 3/16 share. Durgadas Mehta, the judgment-debtor, took on lease the Chitra Talkies buildings from the decree-holder at a monthly rent of Rs. 1150/- for exhibiting films. It appears that he fell into arrears. The Chitra Talkies (Buildings) through Sansar Chand Gohal then filed a suit against Durgadas Mehta, the tenant, for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and for his eviction having terminated the tenancy by a notice. This suit was registered as Suit No. 60 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge of Rookie. The suit was contested by Durgadas Mehta but was decreed on 29-9-1961. Durgadas Mehta filed an appeal in the High Court from the decree but got it dismissed without pursuing it. The dismissal order was passed by the High Court on 17-5-1963. The decree-holder through Sansar Chand Gohal put the decree in execution but for one reason or the other successive executions were not successful. Then on 23-8-1966 fresh execution proceedings were started for eviction of the judgment-debtor and it is these proceedings which have given rise to this appeal. The execution was resisted by the judgment-debtor by filing objections under Section 47 of the C. P. Code. The main grounds raised by the judgment-debtor were: (1) that Sansar Chand Gohal having sold away his interest in the partnership was no longer competent to execute the decree, (2) that the judgment-debtor himself having acquired one-half interest in the partnership could not be dispossessed and (3) that in July 1965 a fresh contract of tenancy came into existence between the parties and the execution of the decree for eviction was barred.

2. The learned executing Court on the evidence on record held that Sansar Chand Gohal had a right to execute the decree he being a partner of the decree-holder firm when the suit was filed and the judgment-debtor himself filed appeal in the High Court against the decree-holder through Sansar Chand Gohal; that the judgment-debtor by acquiring some interest in the partnership business by purchasing the shares of the original partners did not cease to be subject to the decree for eviction and was liable to be dispossessed under the decree and that the new arrangement between the partners of the decree-holder firm and the judgment-debtor in July, 1965 under which the judgment-debtor was allowed to retain possession on payment of rent amounted to an adjustment of the decree and the judgment-debtor was not entitled to set up such arrangement against execution of the decree as it was not got certified by the Court within time as required by Order XXI Rule 2 of the C. P. Code. The result was that the objection of the judgment-debtor under Section 47 of the C. P. Code was dismissed and the decree for dispossession of judgment-debtor from the Chitra Talkies (Buildings) was directed to be executed.

The judgment-debtor then filed an appeal before the District Judge of Saharanpur. While affirming the findings of the executing Court on the question of competency of Sansar Chand Gohal to represent the decree-holder and on the question of the excitability of the decree against the decree-holder though he had acquired an interest in the partnership business, the learned District Judge differed from the view taken by the executing Court on the third point. The learned Judge held that the arrangement entered into between the parties in July, 1965 was not an adjustment of the decree in execution b