The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants can attorn in favor of the paramount title holder if the title has been finally decided by the court, and the burden of proof lies on the party relying on such defense to substantiate the same.

In spite of sufficient service through publication, no one has appeared on behalf of the six legal representatives of respondent No. 1, i. e. , respondent No. 1/1 to respondent No. 1/6. (Substitution applications have been allowed today.) Copy of newspaper has been filed in the first revision. Even though in the newspaper only revision No. 85 of 1992 was mentioned, however all revisions are directed against the same order, same points are involved in all the revisions and parties are also same in all the revisions. Service is, therefore, held sufficient in all the revisions.

2. The case has got a checkered history, however in the impugned order, history of litigation has been traced in detail and with clarity. Original respondent No. 1 Vaishnav Das in the revisions obtained an agreement for sale of property in dispute, which is a shop belonging to the applicant, from the parents of the applicant as at that time, applicant was minor. Agreement was executed in 1968. It appears that under the agreement, possession was also given to Vaishnav Das, who thereafter let out the shop in dispute to respondents No. 2 and 3, Labh Singh and Surjeet Singh. Thereafter, Vaishnav Das filed suit for specific performance against the applicant. The suit was dismissed. Appeal was allowed. However, in the Second Appeal No. 1849 of 1974, suit for specific performance was dismissed. The said second appeal was allowed on 30. 1. 1980. In the year 1981, Vaishnav Das filed eviction suit against his tenants, being S. C. C. Suit No. 14/81, which,was decreed on 18. 10. 1985. Against the said judgment and decree, tenants filed J. S. C. C. Revision No. 700/85, in this High Court. (The said revision was pending, when impugned order was passed on 23. 10. 1991 ). In the revision, dispossession of the tenants was stayed. In the year 1987, the tenants delivered possession to the applicant Mohd. Shoaib. Thereafter, Vaishnav Das filed execution application on the ground that in S. C. C. Revision No. 700 of 1985, a conditional stay order had been granted by the High Court and condition had not been complied with. Execution case was registered as Execution Case No. 9 of 1987. In the said execution case, applicant filed application stating therein that he was in possession.

3. Meanwhile, applicant had also filed O. S. No. 298 of 1989 against Vaishnav Das seeking to restrain him from interfering in his possession. The suit was decreed ex parte. Restoration application was also rejected. The court below/ist A. D. J. , Gorakhpur, through impugned order dated 23. 10. 1991 passed in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1991 and Misc. Case No. 20/1987 and in Execution Case No. 9 of 1987, held that execution should remain stayed, by virtue of judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 298 of 1989, Mohd. Shoaib v. Vaishnav Das. The view of learned 1st A. D. J. , Gorakhpur was that in case ex parte decree passed in the suit of 1989 was set aside, then execution could revive and proceed further. (The said order has been challenged through these revisions ).

4. Firstly, there was no need to keep execution pending. The executing court could, after dismissing the execution, permit the decree holder to file fresh execution application, in case judgment and decree in O. S. No. 298 of 1989 was set aside. The learned counsel for the applicant states that at present, no sort of any restoration application is pending for setting aside the ex parte decree in O. S. No. 298 of 1989.

5. However, in my opinion, there is another point, on which these revisions deserve to be allowed. As held in Bashu Deo v. Bal Kishan, AIR 2002 SC 569, tenants can very well attorn in favour of paramount title holder, if the landlord, who let out the building, has got no defence to the title of the paramount title holder and title has finally been decided by the Court. Para 12 of the said authority is quoted below :

" 12. To constitute eviction by title paramount so as to discharge the obligation of the tenant to