It, therefore, follows that the petitioner, being a person who claims to be in possession as a tenant under the landlady, who admittedly came by the possession of the portion in dispute and surrender by Corea, who was a party to the proceedings and had taken advantage of the ex parte decree, is within the reach of the Court and is bound to restore the possession of the portion in dispute to Periera, I do not see any reason why, in the facts and circumstances, of this case, the legal obligation cast on the petitioner, as indeed the others, to restore the possession of the property to Periera, who was wrongfully deprived of it, should not be enforced by the court. There is no reason why the solemn duty cast on the court to make such a restoration should not be discharged by it. The contention that Periera was merely a licensee or, even if a sub-tenant, was an unauthorised subtenant and, therefore, held the property on a precarious tenure which would not survive judicial scrutiny and the claim of Corea to dispossess Periera was bound to succeed in the suit, which has been restored, to my mind, would not justify the benefit of restitution being declined. It has been pointed out above, that the judgment-debtor would be entitled to restoration even though ultimately he may lose it or was even bound to lose it and restoration proceedings were justified by the Supreme Court, even though at the trial of the suit, a decree had already been passed in favour of the decree-holder, who was required to make the restoration. It is also of no avail that the surrender by Corea
