J.J. Munir,J.

1. Heard Mr. Bimla Prasad, learned Counsel for the revisionist through Video-conferencing.

2. This revision is directed against an order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar rejecting the Judgment-debtor's objections under Section 47 C.P.C.

3. The revisionists, who are five in number, have inherited the tenancy comprising a residential premises part of House No. 80/86, Latouche Road, Kanpur Nagar. The premises in the tenancy of the revisionist of which they are still in possession comprises three rooms. The revisionists' ancestors were tenants in the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- payable to the landlord. It is the revisionists' case that adjacent to the demised premises, there is another house bearing House No. 80/87, which is a distinct and a different premises. It is not part of the demised premises bearing House No. 80/86. The house bearing House No. 80/87, Latouche Road was put to auction by the Income Tax Department in the year 1988 and sold through a registered certificate of sale, entered in Bahi No. 1 Jild no. 4682 recorded at Page no. 11255 in the records of the Sub-Registrar. The said certificate was registered on 08.02.1989. One Taufik Ahmad is said to be the purchaser of the last mentioned house, in the auction sale. It is conceded that the revisionists' ancestors continued to be tenants of the erstwhile owner of the demised premises, one Ishtiyak Rasool.

S.C.C. Suit No. 409 of 2000 Gulam Mustafa vs. Mohd. Iqbal was instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar seeking against the revisionists, a decree of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was brought by the plaintiff Gulam Mustafa on allegations that he was the purchaser of the demised premises, bearing House No. 80/86, Latouche Road, Kanpur Nagar through a sale deed dated 27.06.1996. The plaintiff caused a notice dated 25.08.1988 to be served upon the revisionists' predecessors, Mohd. Iqbal (since deceased) demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The revisionist's predecessor and the defendant of the suit last mentioned, responded by saying that he was a tenant but the rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month. The defendant also demanded to be shown a copy of the registered sale deed. Again a notice dated 11.10.2000 was served, demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- from 27.06.1996, that was served upon the defendant, the revisionists' predecessor on 13.10.2000. The revisionists' predecessor did not pay the rent demanded. As such, the suit for ejectment as well as recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month, aggregating a sum of Rs. 788.50/- and damages for the use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1 and 50 paisa per month was instituted. It is this suit that was numbered on the file of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar as Suit No. 409 of 2000. The predecessors-in-interest of the present revisionists, Mohd. Iqbal filed his written statement in the said suit. He denied the title of transferee landlord and plaintiff of the suit, the details whereof are not of much relevance for the purpose of present revision.

4. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 09.09.2015 decreed the suit for ejectment, directing the defendant-revisionists to hand over possession of the demised premises, within a period of two months and to pay rent in the sum of Rs. 538.50, as well as damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1 and 50 paisa per month. The said judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court was questioned by the revisionists through S.C.C. Revision No. 94 of 2015 before the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The revision came up for determination before the XVIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 15.09.2018, who proceeded to dismiss the revision and affirm the decree for eviction, etc. The revisionists then brought the matter before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, by means of Matter under Article 227 No. 8101 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 27.10.2018 summarily dismissed the aforesaid petition under Article 227 of the Constitution but granted the revisionists six months time to vacate the demised premise, subject to their filing an undertaking before the Trial Court, in the terms directed by this Court. The relevant part of this Court's order is extracted:

"I find that the case is concluded by findings of fact and that there is no merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, since the petitioners have remained as tenants for a substantially long time and it would take some time to find an alternative accommodation, I direct that the petitioner may remain in premises in question for the next six months, subject to filing of an undertaking by them before the Court below, which shall be as under :

(1) The tenants-petitioners shall handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 26.4.2019 ;

(2) The tenants-petitioners shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

(3) The tenants-petitioners shall pay the entire decretal amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(4) The tenants-petitioners shall pay damages @ Rs.1500/- per month by seventh day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 26.4.2019 or till the date they vacate the premises, whichever is earlier, and the landlord shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount;

(5) In the undertaking the tenants-petitioners shall also state that they would not create any interest in favour of any third party in the premises in dispute;

(6) Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the tenants-petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises in question till the aforesaid period;

(7) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically; and

(8) In case the premises is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioners, they shall also be liable for contempt"

5. It is averred in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that the revisionists have no other alternative accommodation, and, as such, they are not in a position to vacate the demised premises, despite the fact that they have lost their cause before this Court. It is then said that execution of the Trial Court's decree has commenced with the decree holder-landlord going ahead in Execution Case No. 27 of 2015. In the said execution case, the revisionists have filed objections under Section 47 C.P.C., dated 17.11.2018. An application in the objections for appointment of a Commissioner has been made on 26.09.2019 to locate the demised property. The Executing Court has rejected the application for the issue of a Commission on 28.10.2021. Finally, the Executing Court dismissed the objections preferred by the revisionists under Section 47 C.P.C. by the order impugned dated 11.11.2021. It is this order passed by the Executing Court that the revisionists seek to assail through the present revision.

6. The crux of the revisionists' objection is that the decree holder has instituted the suit for eviction on the basis of a sale deed executed in his favour by Taufik Ahmad, who was the purchaser of the adjoining premises, bearing House No. 80/87, from the Income Tax Department in an auction sale. He never purchased the demised premises that bear House No. 80/86. Thus, the sale deed dated 27.09.1996 executed in favour of decree-holder, Ghulam Mustafa by Taufik Ahmad did not confer title upon the decreeholder vis-a-vis the demised premises. Since, he is not the owner of the demised premises, the revisionists are not his tenants by operation of law. It was to sustain this objection that the revisionists had asked for the issue of a commission to locate and differentiate the two premises. This Court is afraid that these objections have been gone into during the trial of the suit and the revision preferred by the tenant from the decree. Issue no. 1 framed by the Trial Court, while decreeing S.C.C. Suit No. 409 of 2000 vide judgement dated 09.09.2015, reads:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

7. After a detailed scrutiny of both oral and documentary evidence about the identity of the demised premises, that is to say, whether it was House No. 80/86 or 80/87 and whether the decree holder, Ghulam Mustafa was the owner and landlord of House No. 80/86, wherein the revisionists were tenants, it was held that Ghulam Mustafa was the owner of House No. 80/86 that was subsequently re-numbered as House No. 80/86-B, Latouche Road, Kanpur Nagar. He had purchased the said property through a registered conveyance dated 27.06.1996 validly, and that, the present judgment-debtor revisionists were the decree holder respondents's tenants. This finding was affirmed in revision by the learned District Judge and upheld by this Court. Thus, it is no longer open to the revisionists to question the said finding in objections under Section 47 C.P.C. The scope of objections under Section 47 C.P.C. is well known. It is confined to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. It does not clothe the Executing Court with the power to go behind the decree, or take a fresh look at the issues that have been adjudicated and decided at the trial. The objections that the revisionists now raises are concluded inter partes in proceedings that have culminated before this Court, in terms of the order dated 27.10.2018 passed in Matter under Article 227 No. 8101 of 2018. It is no longer open to the revisionists-judgement debtor to question the eviction decree passed against them indirectly.

8. This Court must remark that in not giving up possession of the demised premises, the judgment debtor-revisionists have rendered themselves prima facie liable to be proceeded with in contempt. This is, particularly so, as direction no. 8 in the order dated 27.10.2018, forewarns the JudgmentDebtors about this consequence.

9. The order of this Court dated 27.10.2018 had granted six months to the judgment debtors to vacate and hand over peaceful possession to the landlord. Instead of doing so, they are still sitting in the premises for more than two years last, since the judgment of this Court dated 27.10.2018. No case for interference with the impugned judgment and order is made out. The Executing Court shall proceed with the execution in accordance with law.

10. In the result, this revision fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Let this order be communicated to the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar before whom Execution Case No. 87 of 2015 arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 409 of 2000 is pending through the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance).