1. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the decree holder is directed against the order dated 1.10.2015 passed in respective Execution Case No.13-A/2015 and 5-A/2015; whereby, the Executing Court has entertained the objection raised by respondent Debtor vide application under Order 21 rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. As evident from the record that, a suit for eviction by present petitioner was compromised and a compromise decree was passed on 30.1.2016 in Writ Petition No.18844/2015 in the following terms :

**1- izfroknh] oknh dks oknxzLr ifjlj ds mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx ds fy, {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa ,d gtkj #i;s izfrekg tuojh 2006 ls oknh dks vnk dj ikorh jlhn izkIRk djsxkA

2- izfroknh] fdjk;snkjh Lkky dk fjDr vkf/kiR; oknh dh fyf[kr lwpuk ij oknh dks Hkou fuekZ.k djus ds rhl fnu iwoZ fjDr dj lkSaisxkA

3- ;fn le;kof/k esa izfroknh fjDr vkf/kiR; izkIr ds lqiqnZ ugha djrk rks oknh U;k;ky; dh dafMdk vuqlkj oknxzLr ifjlj dk fjDr vkf/kiR; izkIr djsxkA vkSj iqu% uohu vuqca/k ds vUrxZr nqdku izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj ugh jgsxkA

4- oknh fookfnr ifjlj dk uofuekZ.k izkjaHk djus dh fnukad ls vkB&nl ekg 'kkWfix dkWEiysDl dk uofuekZ.k iwjk djsxkA

5- oknh uofuekZ.k ds i'pkr uofufeZr 'kkWfix dkWEiysDl esa ls ,d nqdku izfroknh dks uohu fdjk;snkj vuqca/k varxZr rRle; izpfyr nj ij cM+k cktkj esu jksM ls yxh gqbZ izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij nsxkA**

And in Writ Petition No.18849/2015 in the following terms :

1- izfroknh oknh }kjk 'kkWfix dkEiysDl fuekZ.k dh vko';drk dks Lohdkj djrk gS og oknh dks fyf[kr lwpuk ij Hkou fuekZ.k djus ds 30 fnu iwoZ fjDr vf/kiR; oknh dks lkSai nsxkA

2- izfroknh le;kof/k esa fjDr vkf/kiR; oknh dks ugha lkSairk gS rks oknh U;k;ky; esa fu”dklu dk;Zokgh }kjk fjDr vkf/kiR; izkIr dj ldsxkA vkSj izfroknh iqu% oknxzLr nqdku fdjk;s ij izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gksxkA

3- oknh oknxzLr ifjlj dk uofuekZ.k izkajEHk djus ds fnukad ls 9 ls 10 eghus esa 'kkWfix dkEiysDl dk fuekZ.k djsxkA

4- uofuekZ.k i'pkr 'kkWfix dkWEiysDl esa oknh izfroknh dks uohu HkkM+snkjh vuqca/k ds vUrxZr rRle; izpfyr nj ij cM+k cktkj esu jksM ls yxh gqbZ ,d nqdku fdjk;s ij nsxkA

5- izfroknh ,d gtkj #i;s izfrekg {kfr iwfrZ jkf'k tuojh 2006 ls oknh dks vnk djrk jgsxkA**

3. That, there being non-adherance to the terms of the decree in not vacating the premises within 30 days from the date of construction of complex, decree holder brought an execution proceedings in the terms of the decree. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of executing the decree in its own terms, the Executing Court has entertained objection raised by the judgment debtor which tantamount to going behind the decree.

4. Though elaborate submissions were made by both parties against and in support of the course adhered to by the Executing Court. The decision, however, would turn on the construction of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 18 of M.P. Accommodation Act, 1961. To cut it short the same has been elaborately discussed in Ghanshyam Hazarimal v. Nathamal Laxminarayan [1975 MPLJ 509], wherein, while relying on the decisions by the Supreme Court and by our High Court it is held :

“9. It is plain from the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 18 that the right of re-entry is given to the tenant as a concession on the fulfilment of the conditions precedent, namely, that the tenant must deliver possession of the accommodation of the landlord on or before the dates specified in the decree. Hargovind v. Smt. Sunder Bai (supra). If the tenant fails to do so, he forfeits the right of re-entry. Babulal and another v. Mahabir Pershad (supra). The provision of section 18(3) has to be construed strictly and the tenant planding that privilege, must fulfil it exactly. After all, the right of re-entry is given to him as a concession on the fulfilment of the condition precedent.

10. In Ram Nath v. Ram Nath Chittar Mal (supra), their Lordships, while interpreting the analogous provision contained in section 15(3) of the