restriction on ejectment. It
reads as follows:
“42. Restriction on ejectment – A tenant
shall not be ejected otherwise than in
execution of a decree ... mentioned in Section 42 , viz., when a tenant could be
ejected, otherwise than in execution of a Decree for
Ejectment. The application
Pathankot, vide which the
Executing Court has declined to stay the execution of ejectment order, passed
by the trial Court on 7.10.2016 (Annexure
denied a suggestion that as on the date of
execution of registered Sale Agreement itself, they were
aware of the same ... schedule property. Accordingly, they
have filed O.S.No.1012/2008 for ejectment, for damages
and for arrears of rent.
21. Defendant
original tenant were not impleaded
in the said ejectment suit. The said ejectment suit was contested by
Ranjit Ghosh by filing written statement ... Ghosh. The ex-parte decree was put into execution by the decree
holder/respondent herein in execution case no. 256/07 which according
Ms Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia on 3 September, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021
respondents are at liberty to go ahead with the execution
of the said decree for ejectment of the appellant/ defendant in the event the
appellant ... arrangement without affecting the right of
the plaintiffs/ respondents to carry out execution in the event of violation of any
of the terms so agreed
appellant is as tenant at sufferance and is liable to ejectment in due
course of law. But his possession is not legal nor lawful ... appellant may remain in possession until he is ejected in due
course in execution of the decree in the suit filed by the respondent
forfeiture for non-
payment of rent, and the lessor sues to eject the
lessee, if, at the hearing of the suit, the lessee
pays ... suit but also within six
months of the execution of the decree of ejectment by
virtue of sec.210 of Common Law Procedure
appellant may remain in possession
until his ejectment in due course in execution of
the decree in the suit filed by the respondent
comply
with the notice demand. The respondents therefore filed a suit
to eject the petitioner from the suit property.
3. The petitioner contested the suit ... rent and therefore, the suit was not
maintainable for ejectment. He also disputed the execution of
the Will in favour of the respondents and claimed
