Under section 5(4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, Artha Rin Adalat is a Civil Court having all the powers and jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code subject to the provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain and since the impugned order in question was passed in execution proceeding of the Artha Rin Adalat, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure should be followed and accordingly, instead of invoking writ jurisdiction it was the duty of the petitioner to avail the procedure laid down in Order XXI, rule 90 CPC in setting aside the auction sale. 

There is no vires in the second provision to section 4 of Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974

As well as in the Rule 10 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registration Rules, 1974 and the said legal provisions are not ultra vires of the Constitution and in no way infringes of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners as guaranteed therein……..(22) 

In absence of any registered documents the claim of the defendants-petitioners that they have had been treated as tenant on yearly basis is of no substance…..(14)

In absence of any registered deed of agreement, the Court cannot but finds the defendants are tenants at will terminable by notice of 15 days. The principle of terminating tenancy rests primarily on two conditions-one is defaulter and another is bonafide requirement. Existence of any one of these two conditions is suffice to eject a tenant. From their own averments the defendants are habitual defaulters for not paying rents for the year 1385‑1386 BS. The Court of appeal below further found that the suit premises is required by the plaintiff-Bank for installing a branch at the suit premises………….(15) 

A permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for a long time does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession. Cf: Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) Vs. Arvind Kumar; 1994(6) SCC 591.

Here, in this case, possession of the plaintiffs in the suit shops cannot be termed as adverse....(34 & 35)