REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PARAMOUND INDUSTRIES AND METAL FINISHERS Appellant

V/S

CM.MALLIGA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MANOHAR ISWARAPPA CHITAGI V GAJANANA [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 8.]
GEORGE V VARKEY [FOLLOWED ON]
RAMACHANDRA V MANMAL SINGHIL [FOLLOWED ON]
PADMANABHAN V NARAYANAN [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 23.]
RAMEGOWDA V E.G. RAMESH,CRP NO. 1118/73 [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 15.]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA LTD. V J.C. MITRA [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 16.]
ISMAIL SAB V C.P. NANJUNDA SHETTY,CRP NO. 2413/1973 [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 14.]
SANGRAN SINGH VS. ELECTION TRIBUNI KOTAH [FOLLOWED ON]
MAHABIR PERSHAD VS. DELHI TRADERS [DISTINGUSHED ,DIST.; 4.]
JAIRAJI VS. FIRM JAGARNATH PRASAD [DISTINGUSHED ,DISS.; 12.]
MOTAMARII RAMAIAH VS. MALLIAH [DISTINGUSHED ,DISS.; 13.]
TAHERA SAYEED VS. M SHANMUGAM [FOLLOWED ON]
R S MADDIM SETTY VS. A R A BASITH [FOLLOWED ON]
MOHAMMED HASHIM VS. SARABI [REFFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT MALLAPPA DESAI VS. MISHRIMAL NAMAL OSWAL [REFFERRED TO ,AFFIRMED; 7.]
BHAGWAT NARAYAN DWIVEDI VS. KASTURI D/O RAMDAYAL A N M CIVIL DISPENSARY MORENA [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 19.]
USHA JAIN VS. MANMOHAN BAJAJ [DISTINGUSHED ,DISS.; 10.]
JESARAJ GHASIMAL BETAL VS. AHAMMAD HUSSEIN [REFFERRED TO ,OVERRULED; 6.]
MAHAVEERA VS. MANGARAJ [REFFERRED TO :1988(2) KAR. LJ. 312,OVERRULED; 2.]
MOHAMED AMEER VS. HAFEEZ KHAN [REFFERRED TO :1989(1) KAR. LJ. 348,OVERRULED; 17.]
C R RAMAN VS. KARTHIKAYAN [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 24.]
K A PRABHAKARAN VS. KUTTIAN PRAKASHAN [DISTINGUSHED ,DISS.; 11.]
PANDIT RAMGULAM CHOUBEY VS. MAHINDRA KUMAR [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 20.]
PANNA LAL AGRAWALA VS. KANHAIYA LAL JAIN [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 18.]
SHRI DEVI VS. KASHIRAM [DISTINGUSHED ,DIST.; 9.]
Ram Swarup VS. Mahabir Prasad and others [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 5.]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in the light of the decisions of this court and also of the other high courts taking different views on the question involved in this civil revision petition, it is referred to a division bench.

(2.) this c.r.p. is preferred against the order dated 24-8-1989 passed by the learned additional small causes judge (s.c.c.h. 3), Bangalore city in ex. No. 4737/89. The petitioner is an objector to the decree and the respondent is the decree-holder.

(3.) the respondent is the landlord of the premises in question. He obtained an order of eviction under Section 21(1) (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') on 4-1-1989 against Sri a.m. bhatia. The order of eviction was put into execution in ex. Case No. 4737/89. The petitioner objected to the same by filing an objection under Section 47, C.P.C. stating that the order of eviction passed in h.r.c. No. 2828/86 against a.m. bhatia was not binding upon him and that he was in possession of the schedule premises in his own right as a tenant; therefore, the order of eviction obtained against a.m. bhatia cannot be executed so as to dispossess him from the premises and secure possession of the same. Before causing obstruction to the execution by filing objection, the petitioner filed o.s. No. 2886/1988 on 21-6-1988 in the city civil court against the respondent for a declaration that he is in possession of the schedule premises as a tenant and the order of eviction passed in h.r.c. No. 2828/86 is not binding upon him and to permanently restrain the respondent from executing the said order of eviction and dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff from the schedule premises.

Click here to view full judgment.

PARAMOUND INDUSTRIES AND METAL FINISHERS Vs. CM MALLIGA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address