1 cra564.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.564 OF 2010 Harumal Dayaldas Verma ...Applicant vs. Lajwanti Govindram Melwani & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.K.K.Jadhav for the applicant Mr.Harish Pawar for the respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :DECEMBER 8,2010 P.C.: 1 The applicant who is the defendant has suffered a decree for eviction in a suit filed by the first respondent under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The decree has been passed for possession which has attained finality. In execution of the said decree, an objection was raised by the revision applicant contending that recently he has found a leave and licence agreement dated 1st September 1992 executed in respect of the suit premises by which a licence was granted by the first respondent-plaintiff to one Uttambai to use and occupy the suit premises. He submitted that apart from the said document, there are receipts produced in executing Court which show that the first respondent had received the compensation and not rent. He submitted that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, the objection has been overruled by the executing court. He placed reliance on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of M/s.Woolways 2 cra564.sxw Shop-cum-office, Chandigarh and others Vs. Central Bank of India (AIR 1990 Punjab and Haryana 92). He submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner could not have been decided in such a summary manner. 2 I have carefully considered the submissions. In short, the objection of the Applicant is that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the 1st respondent and the applicant and therefore, the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit filed by the first respondent, the applicant did not deny that he was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. In execution, the applicant-judgment debtor is seeking to assail decree on the ground that there was no landlord- tenant relationship and that the applicant was not a tenant. In fact, the finding of the executing Court is that the Applicant admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in the written statement. 3 Under section 47 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the questions which arise regarding execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree are required to be determined by the executing court. Taking the objection of the applicant as it is, he wants to contend that the decree is not legal as there was no landlord- tenant relationship. Such objection at the instance of the Judgment Debtor could not have been entertained under section 47 of the said Code. Hence, there is no merit in the revision application and the same is rejected. JUDGE