Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Harihar Prasad Sah And Ors. vs Sardar Jodh Singh And Ors. on 24 September, 1970Matching Fragments
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that though this plea was not taken at the trial stage they can be allowed to raise his plea dining the execution stage and placed reliance on the aforesaid three decisions of this court an referred to above. It is true that in the case of AIR 1948 Pat 269 and in AIR 1950 Pat 354 the tenants were allowed to take the objection that they could be only ejected from the suit premises under the conditions as laid down in Section 11 of the Act, but it is remarkable to note that the decree for ejectment had been passed in those cases before the Act carne into force and on account of the retrospective operation of Section 11 of the Act it was held that in spitr. of the decree of the Civil Court the tenants could not be ejected and the tenants were allowed to raise this plea in execution of the decree on account of the passing of the Act which gave them new rights and privileges.
7. A similar question arose in the case of 1964 BLJR 507 = (AIR 1964 Pat 482). The tenant deferents were impleaded in the redemption suit and decree was passed in favour of the mortgagor for possession against, all the defendants The tenant defendants, raised a plea at the execution stage that they could not be ejected otherwise than under the conditions and in the manner as laid down in Section 11 of the Act. It was held in that case that the tenant, defendants were precluded from putting forward such objection at the execution stage as no such objection was taken in the suit itself and the plea was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The case of Hira LAL Gupta, 1959 BLJR 234 was also considered in this case and was distinguished. The present case is on all fours with Jainaravan Sah's case, 1964 BLJR 507 = (AIR 1964 Pat 482) and the principle laid down in that case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, in my judgment, the courts below were not right in allowing the tenant respondents 1 to 3 putting forward a claim that they could not be ejected from the suit premises.