Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The arbitral award that became a decree was not put in execution. It was now merely pleaded in defence to stave off a claim for ejectment by stating that the decree allowed for continuance of possession. If such a continuance was possible when the reconstruction was being made, it should have been the basis of pleading so that the Court could have allowed for the tenant to apply for execution of the decree and secure the rights as provided. Merely putting up decree in defence does not carry home any advantage to the tenant. If the tenant was only relying on the decree passed to reject the landlord's contention then it should only be seen whether the decree was enforceable at this length of time. The decree contained mutual obligations namely of the landlord's duty to reconstruct the building and the tenant's duty to share the expenses for the reconstruction. Either way, unless the party had put the decree in execution, it could not come in the way of the landlord's application for ejectment. The tenant was not even prepared to refer to this in his defence to non suit the petitioner in his claim for ejectment. He was probably labouring under an apprehension that it caused liability on him and therefore, it was not useful for him to refer to the same.