Additional City Civil
Judge, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit for ejectment and
etc.
This RFA, coming on for admission, this day, the Court
delivered ... respondents voluntarily without driving them to file
execution petition to execute the decree of ejection
passed by the Trial Court.
2. The appellant has agreed
petitioners, as appellants, filed a petition praying for stay of
decree in Ejectment Suit No. 1739 of 2001.
By order No.2 dated 16th September ... current rent
regularly.
In such circumstances, let the execution proceedings of
the decree in Ejectment Suit No. 1739 of 2001 be stayed till the
disposal
necessary
parties in the execution proceedings.
It is an admitted fact that one Amarjit Singh had filed an
ejectment petition against Surinder Singh from plot ... situated in village Haripur, Sector 4, Panchkula. The ejectment order was
passed on 14.12.2010. The execution was filed by Amarjit Singh on
07.12.2012 in which
dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
In the present case respondents had sought
ejectment of the petitioner. The said petition was allowed vide order
dated ... submissions made by learned counsel
for the respondents, the execution of the ejectment order dated
29.10.2011 passed by the Rent Controller shall remain stayed during
petitioner, in brief, is that in the execution application
No.92 dated 1.12.2012, ejectment order of respondent No.2 was passed and
respondent
mesne profits have been assessed
by the appellate authority.
Respondent had filed ejectment petition against the
petitioners. The same was allowed by the Rent Controller ... whereas petitioners
moved an application for stay of the execution and operation of the
ejectment order dated 08.02.2012. The appellate authority, vide
impugned order dated
that
the Gram Panchayat has not resorted to any execution of orders of
ejectment till date.
2. Factum of allotment of 100 square yards plots ... giving necessary
warnings was also construed to be expedient to ensure the execution
of such orders.
3. Without going into merits of the case, lest
judgment/decree dated 22.8.2008 in ex parte.
Petitioner has filed ejectment petition in an execution petition
moved by respondent No. 1- decree holder. Thereafter, petitioner
JUDGMENT:
1. In short facts are as under:
Plaintiff has sued for ejectment of defendanttenant on the
averments that the property ... seeking the ejectment of the tenant which is neither required for
nor legally mandated. The plaintiff could have sought for ejectment by
relying
decree was put in execution by the petitioner by means of execution No.7 of 2006. In the said execution, respondent No.1 moved application ... distinction between a decree of ejectment and decree for possession in respect of immovable property and in proceedings of execution of a decree of small
