LAWS(SC)-1967-12-29

KONCHADA RAMAMURTY SUBUDHI DEAD Vs. GOPINATH NAIK

Decided On December 07, 1967
KONCHADA RAMAMURTY SUBUDHI (DEAD) BY HIS LEGAL RERESENTATIVES Appellant
V/S
GOPINATH NAIK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the District Judge, Ganjam-Boudh, Berhampur, who had had affirmed the order passed by the Munsif, Berhampur, dismissing M. J. C. No. 220/60 of Gopinath Naik, respondent before us, hereinafter referred to as the Judgment Debtor.

(2.) The facts in this case are not in dispute. One Konchada Ramamurti Subudhi, deceased, now represented by his legal representatives and appellants before us-hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder- and Bhagirathi Naiko, now represented by Gopinath Naik, Judgment debtor, filed a compromising petition under Order 23 R. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of subordinate Judge, Berhampur, in T. A. No. 13 of 1955. In terms of this compromise petition a decree was passed. The decreeholder filed an application for execution of the decree and the judgment-debtor filed the application (M. J. C. No. 220/60) under Section 47, C. P. C., in the Court of Munsif Berhampur, objecting to the execution of the decree. The Munsif dismissed this application of the judgment-debtor and the District Judge affirmed the order. The High Court, however, on appeal, set aside the order of the District Judge.

(3.) The only point raised before us is whether the compromise decree created a lease or licence. It is common ground that if a leave was created the judgment-debtor would be entitled to protection against being ejected by virtue of the provisions of Orissa House-Rent Control Act (Orissa Act 31 of 1958) - hereinfter referred to as the Act.