 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5122/2007 Smt. Lilavati Vithalrao Panchabhai ..vs.. Smt. Yamutai wd/o Anantrao Sheode (Dead) and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 3 rd APRIL, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served. 2. The petitioner is original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 51/1981 and appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 580/1997. She had filed suit against deceased respondent no. 1 for declaration of her right to occupy the suit premises and injunction restraining her from disturbing possession of the petitioner on the said premises. According to the petitioner, she was inducted as tenant in the year 1979 and respondent no. 1-landlady was trying to forcibly dispossess her. The suit was dismissed. However, appeal filed by petitioner was partly allowed. It was found that she was not  a tenant but was only a licensee. Pending the suit, the complete building, including the suit premises, came to be demolished because it was in dilapidated condition. However, defendant no.2-W. G. Chugani i.e. respondent no.4 in this petition, who had purchased the property from original landlady, had given an undertaking that in case the plaintiff would finally succeed in the suit she would be put in possession of the similar premises by reconstruction. 3. In view of the decree passed in the appeal, the petitioner filed Regular Darkhast No. 441/2005 seeking direction to original defendant nos. 1 and 2 to reconstruct the premises on the same place. That Darkhast is pending. It appears that defendant no. 2 constructed a new building consisting of a number of flats and also a bungalow. Respondent nos. 2 and 3, in the present petition are purchasers of some of the flats. It appears that some of the flats have been purchased by Nalini Murlidhar Malewar and Ghanshyamdas Nabadas Chhabria and the bungalow has  been purchased by Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte and Sudhamati Ratnakar Gutte. These four persons filed an application on 20.02.2007 seeking time to file their objections and to recall the warrant of possession, in view of the fact that, they are the purchasers of flats and bungalow without any knowledge of the litigation or any order in favour of the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 also filed an application Exh.-52 seeking permission to lead evidence. In spite of objection taken by the present petitioner, the executing Court allowed that application and fixed the matter for leading oral and documentary evidence. That order is challenged in the present petition. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the petitioner was not tenant and she was a gratuitous licensee. The decree was passed in her favour only on the ground that she was dispossessed without following procedure of law and because defendant no. 2 had given undertaking that she would be put in possession of the  premises of the same size if she finally succeeds. It appears that defendant no. 2 has selected certain flats or premises of the same size and the petitioner has been given offer to select any of them for her occupation. It is impossible to construct the premises in its original shape on the same land in view of construction already made. In view of this, if original defendant no.2 and some of the purchasers want to lead evidence so that appropriate order may be passed for execution of the decree, though not in letters but in spirit, no objection can be taken to the same. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. 5. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE kahale