/2023 INSC 0200/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2855­2856 OF 2011
Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale & Ors.     ...Appellants
Versus
Janardan Subajirao Wide        ...Respondent
WITH
I.A Nos. 89837­89838 of 2021
&
I.A Nos. 38142­38143 of 2023
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. These   civil   appeals   arise   out   of   the   judgment   dated
03.12.2008   of   the   Bombay   High   Court,   allowing   Writ   Petition   No.
1067   of   1992,   and   its   later   judgment   dated   09.09.2009,   dismissing
Review Petition No. 75 of 2009 in W.P No. 1067 of 1992, respectively.
In turn, W.P No. 1067 of 1992 filed by Janardhan Subajirao Wide, the

2
respondent herein, arose out of the judgment dated 21.12.1991 of the
learned 13 th
 Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 1030
of   1987,   confirming   the   judgment   dated   30.09.1987   of   the   learned
II Additional S.C. Judge, Pune, in C.S. No. 386 of 1985.
2. C.S. No. 386 of 1985 was filed by late Ramachandra Maruti
Jagadale,   plaintiff   No.2,   and   his   wife,   late   Sou.   Rangubai   Jagadale,
plaintiff   No.1,   the   predecessors­in­title   of   the   appellants   herein,   for
recovery of possession of the leased premises bearing C.T.S No. 1873
at Bhamburda, Pune, from the tenant, Janardhan Subajirao Wide. By
judgment   dated   30.09.1987,   the   Trial   Court   decreed   their   suit,
holding   them   entitled   to   claim   eviction   of   the   tenant   under   Section
13(1)(e)   of   the   Bombay   Rents,   Hotel   and   Lodging   House   Rates
(Control)   Act,   1947   (for   brevity,   ‘the   Act   of   1947’).   Two   months’   time
was   granted   to   the   tenant   to   vacate   the   premises.   This   judgment   of
the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the learned 13 th
 Additional
District Judge, Pune, vide judgment dated 21.12.1991.
3. It   is   against   these   judgments   that   the   tenant,   viz.,   the
respondent   herein,   filed   W.P.   No.   1067   of   1992   before   the   Bombay
High Court. By its judgment dated 03.12.2008, the High Court opined
that  a case of  sub­tenancy  was  not  made  out,  warranting  eviction  of

3
the   tenant   on   that   ground,   and   quashed   the   decree   of   eviction/
possession.   In   consequence,   C.S.   No.   386   of   1985   was   dismissed.
Aggrieved thereby, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs,
who were on record in the writ petition, filed Review Petition No. 75 of
2009.   However,   by   its   judgment   dated   09.09.2009,   the   High   Court
reiterated its finding that the tenant had never parted with possession
of   the   leased   premises   and   had   never   left   the   premises,   being   a
partner. Holding so, the High Court concluded that there was no error
on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition. Presently,
these two judgments are under appeal.
4. While   so,   the   tenant,   Janardhan   Subajirao   Wide,   the   sole
respondent  in  these appeals,  expired on  16.02.2018. Thereupon,  the
appellants   filed   I.A.   No.   89838   of   2021   seeking   condonation   of   the
delay of 1169 days in taking steps and I.A. No. 89837 of 2021 to set
aside the abatement of the appeals and to permit substitution of the
legal   heirs   of   the   deceased   respondent.   Notice   having   been   ordered
thereon,   Mr.   Sudhanshu   S.   Choudhari,   learned   counsel,   who   had
earlier   appeared   for   the   deceased   respondent,   e­filed   his
vakalatnama/appearance   on   behalf   of   the   legal   representatives   on
05.11.2022.   No counter  was  filed  by  him   opposing  the  applications.
Sufficient   cause  having   been  shown,   delay  in   taking   necessary   steps

4
is   condoned;   abatement   of   the   appeals   is   set   aside;   and   legal
representatives   of   the   deceased   sole   respondent   are   brought   on
record.   Registry   shall   make   necessary   changes   in   the   cause   titles   in
both the appeals before issuing certified copies of this judgment.
5. Heard Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel, appearing
for   the   appellants;   and   Mr.   Sudhanshu   S.   Choudhari,   learned
counsel, appearing for the respondents.
6. The   leased   premises,   consisting   of   two   blocks   with   an
approximate   area   of   455   sq.   ft.,   are   situated   on   the   ground   floor   on
the   eastern   side   of   the   cement­concrete   building,   bearing   C.T.S   No.
1873 at Bhamburda, Pune. These premises were let out to the tenant
by the original landlord and landlady, the predecessors­in­title of the
appellants, for the purpose of his hotel business under the name and
style   of   Hotel   Ambika.   Civil   Suit   No.   386   of   1985   was   filed   by   the
landlord and landlady for eviction of the tenant on two grounds. Their
claim was that the tenant carried out unauthorized construction of a
toilet in the leased premises, thereby violating the mandate of Section
13(1)(b)   of   the   Act   of   1947.   It   was   also   their   case   that   the   tenant
parted   with   the   running   of   the   hotel   and   possession   of   the   leased
premises   in   favour   of   one   Krishna   B   Shetty,   thereby   committing

5
breach of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1947. These grounds are borne
out   by   the   plaint   filed   in   the   suit,   which   is   sought   to   be   placed   on
record,   by   way   of   I.A.   No.   38142   of   2023,   along   with   a   photocopy   of
Section 15 of the Act of 1947. I.A. No. 38143 of 2023 was filed seeking
exemption from filing an official translation of the plaint. The I.A.s are
allowed.   The   documents   are   taken   on   record   and   exemption,   as
prayed for, is granted.
7. The   tenant   filed   a   Written   Statement   denying   the   suit
claims.   Thereupon,   the   Trial   Court   settled   three   issues   for
consideration.   The   plaintiffs   examined   three   witnesses,   including
plaintiff No. 2, while the defendant examined himself as DW1.
8. Plaintiff   No.   2,   speaking   as   PW1,   stated   that   the   suit
premises   was   leased   out   to   the   tenant   in   the   year   1975   for   running
his hotel business. He asserted that the tenant constructed a toilet in
the leased premises in January, 1985, without obtaining his consent
and 2­4 days later, he sold his rights in the hotel to Krishna B Shetty
for a sum of   ₹ 2,00,000/­ and accepted   ₹ 50,000/­ as earnest money.
He claimed that Krishna B Shetty was running the hotel in the leased
premises thereafter for about eleven months. He further stated that in
November, 1985, there was a dispute between the tenant and Krishna

6
B Shetty, which led to the sealing of the premises, and finally the key
thereof   was   handed   over   by   the   Sub­Divisional   Magistrate   to   the
tenant and, thereafter, Krishna B Shetty did not operate the hotel.
9. PW2, the Advocate­Commissioner, stated in her first report
(Exh.8)   that   Krishna   B   Shetty   was   in   occupation   of   the   leased   hotel
premises   when   she   visited   the   same.   In   her   subsequent   report
(Exh.23), she stated that she found no trace of a toilet constructed in
the leased premises.
10. Krishna B Shetty was examined as PW3. He stated that he
intended   to   purchase   the   hotel   from   the   tenant   and   had   taken
possession in January, 1985. He stated that the price was settled at
₹ 2,00,000/­   and   he   paid   ₹ 50,000/­   by   way   of   earnest   money   at   the
time   of   execution   of   the   agreement.   He   asserted   that   the   tenant
illegally evicted him from the hotel premises, constraining him to file a
complaint and also a suit for specific performance.
11. The  tenant  examined  himself as  DW1. In  his examination­
in­chief,   he   claimed   that   he   had   not   given   the   hotel   business   to
Krishna   B   Shetty   or   anyone  else  and   that   Krishna   B   Shetty  was   not
given possession of the leased premises at any time. However, during

7
his   cross­examination,   he   admitted   that   he   was   carrying   on   hotel
business in the leased premises with the name ‘Hotel Ambika' and in
the year 1984, he thought of admitting a partner to run the hotel. As
Krishna   B   Shetty   was   also   in   the   same   business,   he   stated   that   he
had   talks   with   him   about   joining   the   business.   He   denied   that
Krishna B Shetty was allowed by him to join as a partner in January,
1985.   He,   however,   admitted   his   signatures   in   the   partnership
agreement   executed   in   that   regard   (Exh.48)   and   conceded   that   his
own   Advocate   had   purchased   the   stamp   paper   and   drafted   the   said
agreement. He denied that Krishna B Shetty performed Satyanarayan
Pooja   on   07.01.1985,   after   execution   of   the   partnership   agreement,
but   admitted   that   the   Invitation   Card   (Exh.44)   issued   on   that
occasion   bore   his   name.   He   also   admitted   his   signatures   in   the
assignment   agreement   dated   15.01.1985   (Exh.49).   He   denied   that
Krishna   B   Shetty   was   running   the   hotel   as   his   own   business   in   his
individual capacity and that he forcibly dispossessed   him in January,
1986. He admitted that proceedings were initiated under Section 145,
Cr.P.C. but asserted that final orders were passed in his favour.
12. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the Trial
Court answered the three issues framed by it as under: ­

8
     “1.
It   is   proved   that   the
deft.   has   without   the
plffs.   consent   given   in
writing   erected   on   the
suit   premises   any
permanent structure. No
2.
It   is   proved   that   the
deft.   has   after   the   date
of   commencement   of
the   B.R.   Act
(Amendment   Act   of
1973)   unlawfully   given
on licence whole  or
part  of   the   premises  or
assigned or  transferred
in   any   other   manner
his   interest   in   the   suit
premises? Yes
3.
If   plff.   entitled   to
decree for possession? Yes”
13. The   Trial   Court   held   against   the   plaintiffs   in   so   far   as   the
ground   under   Section   13(1)(b)   of   the   Act   of   1947   was   concerned,   as
the Advocate Commissioner's second report (Exh.23) showed no trace
of   a   toilet   having   been   constructed   in   the   leased   premises.   However,
as   regards   the   ground   raised   under   Section   13(1)(e)   of   the   Act   of
1947,   the   finding   was   otherwise.   The   Trial   Court   took   note   of   the
admitted   execution   of   the   partnership   agreement   dated   01.01.1985
(Exh.48), whereby the tenant accepted Krishna B Shetty as a partner
in   his   hotel   business.   Further,   the   Trial   Court   noted   that   the

9
Invitation   Card   (Exh.44)   for   the   Satyanarayan   Pooja,   mentioned   the
name   of   Hotel   Ambika,   the   name   of   the   tenant   and   the   name   of   the
new   partner,   Krishna   B   Shetty.   The   Trial   Court   also   noted   that   the
tenant   admitted   his   signatures   in   the   assignment   agreement   dated
15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby  he had assigned his  hotel  business in
the leased premises to Krishna B Shetty for  ₹ 2,00,000/­ and accepted
₹ 50,000/­ as earnest money. It was accordingly  held that  Krishna  B
Shetty was taken as a partner in the business initially but, thereafter,
the   business   was   sold   to   him   for   ₹ 2,00,000/­.   The   Trial   Court
observed   that   the   original   lease   deed   dated   22.01.1975   (Exh.55)
stated clearly in page 4 that the tenant would not assign the business
and   would   not   allow   third   persons   to   conduct   the   said   business   in
any way nor would he transfer the said business in any way in favour
of a third person. The Trial Court then adverted to Section 15(1) of the
Act of 1947, which provides that, in the absence of a contract to the
contrary, the tenant would not be entitled to sublet or transfer or give
on   licence   the   leased   premises   and   also   the   proviso   thereto,   which
allowed   the   Government,   by   way   of   a   notification   in   the   Official
Gazette,     to   permit   in   any   area   transfer   of   interest   in   premises   held
under   leases or a class of leases to such extent as may be specified in
the notification. As the conditions of the   proviso   were not satisfied on

10
facts   and   in   the   light   of   the   clear   prohibition   of   assignment   in   the
lease deed, the Trial Court decreed the suit.
14. The   learned   13 th
  Additional   District   Judge,   Pune,   affirmed
these findings of the Trial Court and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1030
of   1987   filed   by   the   tenant.   The   Bombay   High   Court,   however,
reversed   the   findings   of   both   the   Courts   below.   While   accepting   that
there was material to show that the tenant had assigned his business
in   favour   of   Krishna   B   Shetty,   the   High   Court   took   recourse   to   the
proviso   to   Section   15(1)   of   the   Act   of   1947   and   held   that   it   was
permissible thereunder for a statutory tenant to transfer his tenancy
rights   even   though   the   lease   agreement   prohibited   such   a   transfer.
Further, the High Court took note of the fact that Civil Suit   No. 623 of
1986   filed   by   Krishna   B   Shetty   against   the   tenant   for   specific
performance   had   been   dismissed.   According   to   the   High   Court,   so
long as the legal possession remained with the tenant, mere creation
of   a   partnership   agreement   by   the   tenant   for   the   purpose   of   jointly
carrying   on   business   in   the   leased   premises   would   not   amount   to
sub­letting.   Holding   so,   the   High   Court   set   aside   the   decree   of
eviction/possession   and   dismissed   the   suit.   By   its   later   judgment
dated 09.09.2009, the High Court dismissed the Review Petition filed
by the appellants herein, reiterating that the tenant had never parted

11
with or left the premises and, being a partner, he was also involved in
the business. Observing that the dominant purpose of the agreement
executed   by   the   tenant   was   not   to   sub­let   the   premises,   the   High
Court   opined   that   there   was   no   error   on   the   face   of   the   record
warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
15. At   this   stage,   we   may   note   that   neither   of   the   parties
thought it appropriate to place on record all the documents that they
considered   relevant.   The   original   lease   deed   dated   22.01.1975
(Exh.55), relied upon by Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel, is
not   available   for   scrutiny.   Similarly,   the   judgment   in   Civil   Suit   No.
623 of 1986, filed against the tenant by Krishna B Shetty, relied upon
by   the   High   Court   and   Mr.   Sudhanshu   S.   Choudhari,   learned
counsel, was not produced prior to conclusion of the hearing of these
appeals. However, the learned counsel deemed it fit to enclose a copy
of   the   said   judgment   along   with   his   Written   Submissions,   after   this
judgment   was   reserved.   As   the   said   document   was   not   placed   on
record in keeping with due procedure and at the appropriate time, it
is   liable   to   be   eschewed   from   consideration.   More   so,   as   the   sole
respondent   entered   appearance   through   counsel   as   long   back   as   in
January,  2011, and  had  ample opportunity  to  do  the needful  even  if
the   said   judgment   did   not   form   part   of   the   record   before   the   High

12
Court.   This   Court   is,   therefore,   constrained   to   adjudicate   on   the
strength of the material available on record.
16. The   issue   for   consideration   is   whether   the   tenant
committed breach of the lease condition with regard to assignment of
his   business   in   the   leased   premises,   warranting   his   eviction   under
Section   13(1)(e)   of   the   Act   of   1947.   Though   the   tenant   denied   the
same,   Mr.   Vinay   Navare,   learned   senior   counsel,   would   assert   that
the   admissions   made   by   him   during   his   deposition   as   DW1   speak
volumes   to   the   contrary.   He   would   point   out   that   the   tenant
categorically   admitted   execution   of   the   partnership   agreement   dated
01.01.1985 (Exh.48) and the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985
(Exh.49),   apart   from   conceding   that   the   Invitation   Card   (Exh.44),
issued   in   connection   with   the   Satyanarayan   Pooja   performed   in   the
hotel,   mentioned   his   name   along   with   those   of   Hotel   Ambika   and
Krishna B Shetty.
17. Countering   these   contentions,   Mr.   Sudhanshu   S.
Choudhari,   learned   counsel,   would   argue   that   execution   of   a
partnership   deed   by   the   tenant,   whereby   a   third   party   was   inducted
into the business as a partner, is of no consequence. He would point
out   that   the   partnership   agreement   dated   01.01.1985   (Exh.48)

13
mentioned   that   the   business   would   be   undertaken   as   a   partnership
with   the   tenant;   his   brother,   Laxman;   and   Krishna   B   Shetty,   as
partners  and   that   the   relevant   clause  in   the   said   document,  marked
as   Exh.51,   indicated   that   Krishna   B   Shetty   would   look   after   the
business  transactions.  He  would   place  reliance  on   Parvinder   Singh
Vs. Renu Gautam and others 1
  and  Mahendra Saree Emporium (II)
Vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy 2
  in support of his contention that such a
business   arrangement   would   not   amount   to   creation   of   an
assignment or sub­tenancy.
18. In  Parvinder Singh  ( supra ), this Court observed that if the
tenant   is   actively   associated   with   the   partnership   business   and
retains   the   use   and   control   over   the   tenanted   premises   with   him,
maybe along with partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted
with possession, but if the user and control of the tenanted premises
has been parted with and the deed of partnership has been drawn up
as an indirect method of collecting consideration for creation of a sub­
tenancy   or   for   providing   a   cloak   to   conceal   a   transaction   not
permitted   by   law,   the   Court   is   not   estopped   from   tearing   the   veil   of
partnership and finding out the real nature of the transaction entered
into between the tenant and the alleged sub­tenant.
1 (2004) 4 SCC 794
2 (2005) 1 SCC 481

14
19. This   Court   observed   in   Mahendra   Saree   Emporium
( supra ) that the transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property to the
exclusion of all others during the term of the lease is the  sine qua non
of   a   lease   under   Section   105   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act,   1882,
and a sub­lease would imply parting with, by the tenant, of the right
to enjoy such property in favour of his sub­tenant. This Court further
noted that the phraseology employed for inferring sub­letting is quite
wide and would  embrace within  its scope sub­letting  of  the  whole  or
part   of   the   premises   as   also   assignment   or   transfer   in   any   other
manner   of   the   lessee's   interest   in   the   tenanted   premises.   On   facts,
however,   it   was   held   that   the   tenant   therein   had   not   created   a
sub­tenancy merely by converting his sole proprietary business into a
partnership   business   and   as   the   tenant   never   dissociated   himself
from the business activity.
20. It   would   be   apposite   at   this   stage   to   peruse   the   relevant
statutory provisions, viz., Section 13(1)(e) and Section 15(1) of the Act
of 1947. They read as under: ­
‘Section   13   (1)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   this
Act,   but   subject   to   the   provisions   of   Section   15,   a   landlord
shall be  entitled to recover possession of any premises if the
Court is satisfied­ 
(a)  ­ (d) ……

15
 
(e)   that   the   tenant   has,   since   the   coming   into   operation   of
this Act unlaw­fully sub­let the whole or part of the premises
or  assigned   or  transferred  in  any  other  manner   his  interest
therein; or
(ee)……..’
‘Section   15   (1)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   any
law, but  subject   to   any  contract  to  the   contrary,  it  shall   not
be  lawful  after the  coming into operation of  this  Act  for any
tenant to sub­let the whole or any part of the premises let to
him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest
therein and after the date of  commencement  of  the  Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment)
Act, 1973, for any tenant to give on licence the whole or part
of such premises
Provided   that   the   State   Government   may   by
notification   in   the   Official   Gazette   permit   in   any   area   the
transfer   of   interest   in   premises   held   under   such   leases   or
class of leases or the giving on licence any premises or class
of   premises   and   to   such   extent   as   may   be   specified   in   the
notification.’
The aforestated provisions make it crystal clear that, in the
ordinary course and notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law,   unless   the   contract   itself   permits   sub­letting,   it   shall   not   be
lawful, after coming into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to
sub­let   the   premises   let   out   to   him   or   to   assign   or   transfer   in   any
manner   his   interest   therein.   The   proviso   to   Section   15(1),   however,
authorizes   the   State   Government   to   permit,   in   any   area,   transfer   of
interest in premises held under leases or a class of leases, by issuing
a   notification   in   the   Official   Gazette,   duly   delineating   the   extent   to
which such transfer is permitted. Presently, it is nobody's case that a
notification was issued by the State Government having application to

16
the   case   on   hand.   Viewed   thus,   reliance   placed   by   the   High   Court
upon this provision was wholly misconceived. In the absence of such
a   notification   by   the   State   Government,   the   issue   is   whether   the
tenant could have assigned his leasehold interest in favour of Krishna
B Shetty under the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49),
overriding the condition in the lease deed to the contrary.
21. It   is   in   this   context   that   the   prohibitory   condition   in   the
lease deed dated 22.01.1975 (Exh.55) assumes importance. The Trial
Court   and   the   Appellate   Court   extracted   the   gist   of   the   said   lease
condition   in   their   judgments.   The   Lease   Deed   is   stated   to   have
recorded unequivocally in page 4 that the business of Hotel Ambika is
the independent business of the tenant and that he would not assign
the   business   and   would   not   allow   third   persons   to   conduct   the   said
business  in  any  way  nor  would   he  transfer  the  said  business in   any
way in favour of a third person. Therefore, there is a clear interdiction
against   transfer   or   assignment   by   the   tenant   of   the   business   being
run in the leasehold premises in favour of a third person.
22.  Given   the   clear   proscription   in   the   lease   deed,   duly
endorsed by the explicit language of Sections 13(1)(e) and 15(1) of the
Act   of   1947,   the   very   execution   of   the   assignment   agreement   dated

17
15.01.1985   (Exh.49),   whereby   the   tenant   admittedly   assigned   his
business in the leasehold premises in favour of Krishna B Shetty for
₹ 2,00,000/­ and accepted a sum of  ₹ 50,000/­ as earnest money, was
sufficient in itself to establish transgression of the lease condition and
the   statutory   mandate.  No  doubt,  the   earlier  decisions  of  this   Court,
referred   to   hereinabove,   laid   down   the   principle   that   the   mere
execution of a genuine partnership deed by a tenant, whereby he/she
converted   a   sole   proprietary   concern   into   a   partnership   business,
while continuing to actively participate in the business and retaining
control over the tenanted premises wherein the business is being run,
would not amount to sub­letting. However, that principle has no role
to   play   in   the   case   on   hand   as   the   tenant   did   not   stop   short   at
executing   the   partnership   agreement   dated   01.01.1985   (Exh.48)   but
went   on   to   execute   the   assignment   agreement   dated   15.01.1985
(Exh.49),   whereby   he   assigned   his   hotel   business   in   the   leased
premises   to   Krishna   B   Shetty   and   received   earnest   money   also.   The
very   act   of   execution   of   this   document   was   sufficient   in   itself   to
complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory mandate
and   did   not   require   anything   further.   Therefore,   the   subsequent
failure   of   Krishna   B   Shetty   in   his   specific   performance   suit   in   Civil
Suit   No.   623   of   1986,   be   it   for   whatever   reason,   is   of   absolutely   no
relevance   or   consequence.   All   the   more   so,   as   the   landlord   and

18
landlady   were   admittedly   not   parties   thereto   and   the   judgment
rendered   in   the   said   suit   was   not   even   placed   on   record   as   per   due
procedure   and   at   the   relevant   time.   Irrespective   of   the   result   in   the
said   suit,   the   ineluctable   fact   remains   that   the   tenant   admitted
execution   of   the   assignment   agreement   (Exh.49)   and   that   singular
fact settled the issue as to whether there was an act of assignment on
his   part.   The   High   Court   seems   to   have   lost   sight   of   this   crucial
aspect.
23. We,   therefore,   find   on   facts   that   the   tenant   admitted
committing a breach of the lease condition with regard to assignment
of his leasehold interest in favour of a third party, when he signed the
assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49) for a consideration
of  ₹ 2,00,000/­ and received  ₹ 50,000/­ as earnest money. The breach
being   complete   on   his   part   upon   such   execution   itself,   the   failure   of
the   assignee,   Krishna   B   Shetty,   in   his   suit   for   specific   performance
against the tenant is of no import.
24. The   impugned   judgments   of   the   Bombay   High   Court   are
accordingly set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court, as affirmed
by   the   Appellate   Court,   shall   stand   restored.   In   consequence,   the
respondents   herein,   being   the   legal   representatives   of   the   deceased

19
tenant,   shall   vacate   the   suit   premises   and   hand   over   vacant   and
peaceful possession thereof to the appellants within 2 months, failing
which   the   appellants   shall   be   at   liberty   to   initiate   execution
proceedings before the competent court.
25. The   appeals   and   the   I.As   are   allowed.     There   shall   be   no
order as to costs.
……………………………………….J
[ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]
………………………………………...J
[SANJAY KUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH  21, 2023.