A default in payment under a compromise decree does not create a new tenancy and does not necessitate a separate eviction suit.

1. These three appeals arise out of three orders being Order ; No. 50 passed in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1976, Order No. 51 passed in Misc. Case No. 19 of 1976 and Order No. 49 passed in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1976 respectively on 19-5-76, dismissing the said Miscellaneous cases filed under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. in Title Execution Case No. 16 of 1975.

2. The petitioner M/s. Purban Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, has been in occupation of the basement, first floor and fourth floor of premises No. P - 5, C.I.T. Scheme - IV, Calcutta as a tenant under the respondent Deb Kumar Shaw. The petitioner Company defaulted in payment of rents. The respondent filed three ejectment suits being Title Suits Nos. 67 of 1973, 68 of 1973 and 89 of 1973 in the 9th Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore in respect of the said three flats. The said suits were decreed on compromise on Dec. 5, 1974. The compromise decree provided that the total sum of Rs. 1,17,000 on account of arrears of rent and mesne profits would be paid by the defendant in the following manner - A sum of Rs. 30,000 to be paid by 31st December, 1974 and the balance amount of Rs. 87,000 to be paid in 17 quarterly instalments of Rs. 5,000 each except the last instalment which should consist of Rs. 2,000. It was further provided in the amid decree that the company, that is, the petitioner would also go on paying a total of Rs. 2,250 per month within 15th of the month succeeding as current mesne profits in respect of the said three tenancies. There is also a default clause which provides that in case of default the decree - holder will be entitled to execute the decree and take possession of the suit premises. It has also been provided in the compromise decree that if all the arrears of rent and the current mesne profits are paid in the manner provided in the compromise decree the old tenancy will continue. The defendant petitioner defaulted in making payment in terms of the said decree. The plaintiff put the said decree into execution in Title Execution Case No. 16 of 1975. In the said execution case an objection was filed on behalf of the judgment - debtor petitioners that the decree has become inexecutable as the State of West Bengal has declared the petitioner company as a State Undertaking. Unless the State of West Bengal is made a party in the execution proceedings the writ of possession cannot be executed. It has also been stated that the I.R.C.I. is also a necessary party as they advanced a huge sum of money for running the business in the suit premises. Similar objections were filed in the other Title Execution cases and these objections were registered as Misc Cases Nos. 19, 20 and 21. On May 19, 1976, all these misc. cases were dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, 9th Court, Alipore holding that the State of West Bengal was not a necessary party and this had been held by an earlier order dated Feb. 20, 1976 as the notification - in - question had no application to the instant decrees. It has also held that the I.R.C.I. in spite of given time to file application under O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P. C. did not appear in the misc. case and as such it was not a party interested and a necessary party. It was further held that S. 148, C.P.C. did not apply inasmuch as the executing court cannot go behind the decree except for the purpose of dissolving any ambiguity. The compromise decree is unambiguious and as such the executing court cannot extend time for making the deposits as provided in the compromise decree.

3. Against these orders three appeals being F. M. A. Nos. 780 of 1976, 806 of 1976 and 527 of 1976 have been filed and in connection with the said appeals three Rule