SUMITRA DEVI Vs. MAULA BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The predecessor in interest of the petitioner late Gopal Dass was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the father of the respondent-landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. That was in 1952. In 1975 the landlord-respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent as also on the ground that he required suit premises reasonably, bonafide and in good faith for his use and occupation. The learned Munsif on 22.11.1978 decreed the suit of the landlord-respondent and granted decree of eviction against the tenant. It was held that the respondent did not require the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. However, the tenant was held defaulter of arrears of rent from July to December, 1974 and, therefore, liable to be evicted from the premises. The appellant's first Appeal No. 35 of 1979 was dismissed on 16th January, 1981. The decree of eviction passed against the appellant was confirmed. The appellant being aggrieved also filed S.A. No. 57/81 before the High Court which was also dismissed. This Court on 11th December, 1981 was pleased to grant special leave to appeal and stayed dispossession during the pendency grant special leave to appeal and stayed dispossession during the pendency of the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the original tenant Gopal Dass died leaving the present appellants as his legal heirs and they were substituted on record. This court finally heard the matter on 28th August, 1987 and disposed of the same by a speaking order. This court enhanced the rent of suit premises with liberty to file present suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirement if he was so entitled undr the law. It appears that there is stay of this Hon'ble Court and while disposing of the appeal, this Court did not set aside decree of eviction passed against the appellant. Taking advantage of this omission, the respondent filed execution application against the appellant and got the decree executed forcibly.

(3.) This is unfortunate. This is clearly an attempt to over read the Court. The appellant was to continue as tenant. In view of the matter and in the circumstances of the case the order of the High Court and the execution of Munisff's order dated 26th November, 1987 are set aside. The appellant will be put back in possession within three weeks from today. The appellant will abide by the other terms mentioned in the order dated 28th August, 1987. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.