JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Umesh Vats, for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Tandon, for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed against the orders of Judge, Small Causes Court dated 07.07.2011, dismissing objection of the petitioner under Section 47 C.P.C. and Additional District Judge dated 09.12.2015, dismissing the revision against aforesaid order, in proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Heera Lal and Govind Prasad (now represented by the respondents-7 to 18) and Sunder Lal (now represented by respondents-1 to 6) (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) were landlord and Smt. Roopwati (petitioner-1) was tenant of the disputed premises. The landlord sent a notice dated 04.09.1978 to petitioner-1 that they were owner and landlord of premises 106/262, Anand Bagh, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. A piece of open land, which was part of premises 106/262, was let out to petitioner-1 on rent of Rs. 80/- + Rs. 5/- for water tax, per month and tenancy corresponds to English calender month. Petitioner-1 is defaulter since 01.05.1978 to 31.08.1978. In spite of repeated demand, she has not paid rent. She has also constructed three rooms over disputed land without consent of landlord. Petitioner-1 gave reply dated 26.10.1978 to the aforesaid notice, in which tenancy has been admitted. It has been stated that rent was regularly tendered to the landlord, which was not accepted. After notice entire arrears of rent was sent through money order on 31.10.1978. The disputed land was taken for manufacturing almira and for which tin shed constructions were raised, which were necessary for use of the tenancy. 4. Sunder Lal (co-landlord) filed a suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 1181 of 1979) on 26.10.1979 for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of petitioner-1. In the plaint, initially disputed property was described as premises 106/262, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur. Subsequently, the plaint was amended vide order dated 23.04.1990 and disputed property was described as premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur and its boundary was mentioned as East- Private passage 9' feet wide. North- Private plot no. 42 of premises 106/262. West- Private passage 20' wide. South-Private passage 33' feet wide. 5. The suit was decreed exparte by judgement dated 04.09.1993. Subsequently, the plaint was amended vide order dated 23.04.1990 and disputed property was described as premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur and its boundary was mentioned as East- Private passage 9' feet wide. North- Private plot no. 42 of premises 106/262. West- Private passage 20' wide. South-Private passage 33' feet wide. 5. The suit was decreed exparte by judgement dated 04.09.1993. Petitioner-1 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside decree dated 04.09.1993, which was allowed by order dated 21.08.1996 and the suit was restored to its original number. Petitioner-1 again committed default and suit was proceeded exparte by order dated 16.08.1997 against her. Petitioner-1 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. dated 01.10.1997, but she again did not turn up and suit was decreed exparte by judgement dated 07.10.1997. 6. Petitioner-1 filed a revision (registered as SCC Revision No. 217 of 1997) against the aforesaid decree. In the revision, she took plea that State of U.P. through notification dated 29.03.1984 and 11.03.1986 issued under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962 has acquired premises 106/262, Gandhi Nagar. In pursuance thereof Kanpur Development Authority framed a development scheme which was approved by State of U.P. through notification dated 03.09.1986. In survey, the petitioners were found in occupation of different portion of the acquired premises. In pursuance of notice issued by Kanpur Development Authority, they deposited required amount on 22.05.1987 and 25.05.1987 and new house no. 79 was allotted to petitioner-1 and new house no. 80 was allotted to petitioner-2. Kanpur Development Authority improved the premises and allotted to its occupants conferring free-hold right, taking specific charges from them. Kanpur Development Authority issued demand notice dated 10.02.2000 and 06.03.2000 to the petitioners demanding Rs. 85,834.40 each from both the petitioners, which were deposited by them, on which sale deeds dated 02.11.2000 were executed in their favour by Kanpur Development Authority. The landlord has lost their right, title and interest in the disputed premises due to its acquisition under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962 and suit is liable to be dismissed. The revision was heard by Additional District Judge, who by judgement dated 15.09.1999, held that tenancy was in respect of a tin shed construction of 42' X 45'. In the notice dated 04.09.1978 and in the plaint, tenancy of open land was shown. The revision was heard by Additional District Judge, who by judgement dated 15.09.1999, held that tenancy was in respect of a tin shed construction of 42' X 45'. In the notice dated 04.09.1978 and in the plaint, tenancy of open land was shown. As such on the basis of this notice, suit was not maintainable. On these findings, he allowed the revision, set aside decree dated 07.10.1997 and dismissed the suit. 7. The landlord filed a writ petition (registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45550 of 1999), against the aforesaid order, which was allowed by this Court by judgement dated 17.02.2011. The petitioners filed an application (registered as Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 139446 of 2011), which was rejected by order dated 11.03.2014. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid orders in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8528 of 2014, in which this controversy that due to acquisition of premises in dispute under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962, landlord has lost his title and the petitioners were conferred new title, was raised but Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by order dated 30.07.2014. 8. The landlord filed an application (registered as Execution Case No. 8 of 2011) for execution of decree dated 07.10.1997. The petitioners filed an objection (registered as Misc. Case No. 74 of 2011) under Section 47 C.P.C. raising the ground that decree dated 07.10.1997 is in-executable. In this objection, the petitioners again raised controversy that State of U.P. through notification dated 29.03.1984 and 11.03.1986 issued under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962 has acquired premises 106/262, Gandhi Nagar. In pursuance thereof Kanpur Development Authority framed a development scheme which was approved by State of U.P. through notification dated 03.09.1986. In survey, the petitioners were found in occupation of different portion of the acquired premises. In pursuance of notice issued by Kanpur Development Authority, they deposited required amount on 22.05.1987 and 25.05.1987 and new house no. 79 was allotted to petitioner-1 and new house no. 80 was allotted to petitioner-2. Kanpur Development Authority improved the premises and allotted to its occupants conferring free-hold right, taking specific charges from them. Kanpur Development Authority issued demand notice dated 10.02.2000 and 06.03.2000 to the petitioners demanding Rs. 85,834.40 each from both the petitioners, which were deposited by them, on which sale deeds dated 02.11.2000 were executed in their favour by Kanpur Development Authority. Kanpur Development Authority improved the premises and allotted to its occupants conferring free-hold right, taking specific charges from them. Kanpur Development Authority issued demand notice dated 10.02.2000 and 06.03.2000 to the petitioners demanding Rs. 85,834.40 each from both the petitioners, which were deposited by them, on which sale deeds dated 02.11.2000 were executed in their favour by Kanpur Development Authority. The landlord has lost their right, title and interest in the disputed premises due to its acquisition under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962. The petitioners have acquired an independent title through sale deeds dated 02.11.2000 as such they are not liable to be ejected in execution of decree dated 07.10.1997. Executing Court heard the objection and by order dated 07.07.2011 held that same controversy was raised by the petitioners in their revision, which was not accepted in revision, writ petition and Special Leave Petition as such the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise same controversy again in execution. On these findings, she dismissed objection of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as SCC Revision No. 71 of 2012) against aforesaid order. Additional District Judge, by her order dated 01.12.2015 affirmed the findings of Executing Court and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition has been filed. 9. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that State of U.P. through notification dated 29.03.1984 and 11.03.1986 issued under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962 has acquired premises 106/262, Gandhi Nagar. In pursuance thereof Kanpur Development Authority framed a development scheme which was approved by State of U.P. through notification dated 03.09.1986. In survey, the petitioners were found in occupation of different portions of the acquired premises. In pursuance of notice issued by Kanpur Development Authority, they deposited required amount on 22.05.1987 and 25.05.1987 and new house no. 79 was allotted to petitioner-1 and new house no. 80 was allotted to petitioner-2. Kanpur Development Authority improved the premises and allotted to its occupants, conferring free-hold right, taking specific charges from them. Kanpur Development Authority issued demand notice dated 10.02.2000 and 06.03.2000 to the petitioners demanding Rs. 85,834.40 each from both the petitioners, which were deposited by them, on which sale deeds dated 02.11.2000 were executed in their favour by Kanpur Development Authority. The landlord has lost their right, title and interest in the disputed premises due to its acquisition under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962. 85,834.40 each from both the petitioners, which were deposited by them, on which sale deeds dated 02.11.2000 were executed in their favour by Kanpur Development Authority. The landlord has lost their right, title and interest in the disputed premises due to its acquisition under U.P. Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1962. The petitioners have acquired an independent title through sale deeds dated 02.11.2000 as such they are not liable to be ejected in execution of decree dated 07.10.1997. The respondents have filed O.S. No. 1603 of 2001 for cancellation of sale deeds dated 02.11.2000, which is pending. Filing of this suit by the respondents fully proved that houses 79 and 80 allotted to the petitioners were same premises, which was let out to petitioner-1 by them. Kanpur Development Authority has filed its written statement in O.S. No. 1603 of 2001, in which it has been mentioned that the petitioners were found in occupations of the acquired premises as such houses 79 and 80 were allotted to them. The petitioners are not in occupation of premises 106/262-J. Plaint was surreptitiously amended and number of premises was changed from 106/262 to 106/262/-J. In the garb of decree in respect of premises 106/262-J, the respondents want to take possession over houses 79 and 80, which was part of premises 106/262 and allotted by Kanpur Development Authority to the petitioners. Although this issue was raised by the petitioners in the revision and Special Leave Petition but no finding has been recorded by any Court. In the circumstances, Executing Court ought to have decided this issue but it has illegally not recorded any finding in this respect and dismissed the objection. Impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. From notification of State of U.P. dated 11.03.1986, it is proved that premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar was not acquired. Otherwise also, Sunder Lal filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18466 of 1987, in which interim injunction, restraining State of U.P. and Kanpur Development Authority from dispossessing Sunder Lal from premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar has been passed. Kanpur Development Authority, in its written statement filed in O.S. No. 1603 of 2001, has admitted that neither premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar was acquired nor possession was taken over it. Writ Petition No. 18466 of 1987, in which interim injunction, restraining State of U.P. and Kanpur Development Authority from dispossessing Sunder Lal from premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar has been passed. Kanpur Development Authority, in its written statement filed in O.S. No. 1603 of 2001, has admitted that neither premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar was acquired nor possession was taken over it. In the plaint of SCC Suit No. 1181 of 1979 (as amended) tenancy of petitioner-1 was described as premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur and its boundary was mentioned as East- Private passage 9' feet wide. North- Private plot no. 42 of premises 106/262. West- Private passage 20' wide. South- Private passage 33' feet wide. A map of acquired premises as prepared by Kanpur Development Authority was produced by the counsel for the petitioners in Court. In this map premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar was shown in south of the building, developed by Kanpur Development Authority after road, which fully tallied with the boundary of disputed premises as given in plaint. Thus decree is in respect of a distinct property. 11. A perusal of plaint of O.S. 1603 of 2001 shows that this suit was filed mainly on allegations that the petitioners were not in occupation of the acquired premises but they by committing fraud obtained sale deeds dated 02.11.2000. In this plaint also tenancy of petitioner-1 was shown as premises 106/262-J, Gandhi Nagar and it has been stated that it was never acquired by State of U.P. through notification dated 11.03.1986. Thus there is no admission of the respondents that new houses 79 and 80 were part of premises 106/262-J, Gandi Nagar. 12. Decree dated 07.10.1997 has to be executed in respect of premises 106/262-J Gandhi Nagar, of which boundary has also been mentioned. Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904 , held that the objection that raised by the respondent in regard to the correctness of the site plan. As noted earlier, this very issue was specifically raised in the original ejectment proceedings and was held against the respondents based mainly on the admission of the first respondent which we have already extracted here in above. As noted earlier, this very issue was specifically raised in the original ejectment proceedings and was held against the respondents based mainly on the admission of the first respondent which we have already extracted here in above. At the cost of repetition, we must restate that this question of identity of the property was never again raised in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, in the revision before the revisional authority, namely, the High Court or in the SLP before this Court. In such circumstances, we fail to understand how this very issue can be re-agitated in the execution proceeding by the tenants. It is also to be noticed that the executing court has rightly observed that reopening of this issue would amount to asking that court to go behind the decree which is impermissible in law. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.