E PARASHURAMAN Vs. DORAISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated July 15, 2003 in H.R.R.P. Nos. 209 and 210 of 2000. By its aforesaid judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions preferred by the appellants/tenants and upheld the order of the 15th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dated January 27, 2000 in H.R.C. Nos. 10700-10701 of 1991 thereby affirming the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the respondent/landlord.

(2.) It is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. According to the appellants, the property in question, of which the rented premises form part, was owned by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) which had leased out the building to one Mr. Dhanapal for a period of ten years. In O.S. No. 436 of 1964 on the file of the Munsifs Court, Civil Station, Bangalore, a decree had been passed in favour of Shri Dhanapal directing the vendors to execute the re-conveyance deed in favour of Shri Dhanapal and to deliver all the documents in their possession. It also appears from the deed of sale executed on 9th June, 1967 by the Munsif, Civil Station, Bangalore, on behalf of the aforesaid vendors Smt. Lakshamma and others, that Shri Dhanapal had assigned the decree in favour of Shri Doraiswamy. The sale deed which was executed by the Court on behalf of the judgment-debtor and in favour of Doraiswamy narrates the following :- "Now this indenture of sale witnesseth that in pursuance of the Decree in OS No. 436 of 1965 and Ex. No. 425 of 1966 on the file of the Munsif, Civil Station, Bangalore, the Vendors 1 and 2 by the Munsif, Civil Station, Bangalore, doth hereby grant and sell and transfer, convey and assign unto the use of the said purchaser, free from encumbrance of the schedule property to have and to hold the same with absolute liberty to own, occupy, use, transfer, deal with and to dispose of the said schedule property in any manner whatsoever the said purchaser desires."

(3.) On a reading of the sale deed executed by the Court, it appears that the vendors therein claimed absolute ownership of the land and structures and building thereon, and the same was conveyed to the assignee, namely - Doraiswamy, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent.