SACHIDANANDAMURTHY Vs. TRIPAJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions are inter-related and arise out of different orders passed in the same proceedings between the same parties, therefore, heard together for passing common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in CRP 2705/2001 is the petitioner No. 2 in CRP 1030/2001 who is the original landlord and the first petitioner in CRP 1030/2001 is the daughter of the second petitioner who has acquired the interest in the petition premises. The ranking of the parties in the present order is referred in the manner as described in CRP 1030/2001. The second petitioner filed the eviction against the respondent in HRC 1515/85 under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for the bonafide personal use and occupation of the premises by his daughter who is the first petitioner. The H.R.C. case ended in compromise. The respondent undertook to vacate the premises by taking three years time. Accordingly the eviction was ordered by the Court pursuant to the terms of the compromise. The execution case was filed in Ex. Petition No. 10618/93 on the file of the 8th Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore. In the said proceedings, the first petitioner made an application to come on record under Order 1, Rule 10(2), CPC in I.A. 4. The respondent filed I.A. 3 for dismissal of the execution petition and also filed objections to I.A. 4. The Court, after hearing the parties, allowed I.A. 3 dismissing the execution case and also dismissed I.A. 4. Being aggrieved, the present revisions are filed.

(3.) THE eviction petition came to be allowed by compromise. The present execution petition came to be filed. During the pendency of the execution case, the second petitioner relinquished his joint interest in the property and requested the BDA to execute the absolute sale deed in favour of first petitioner. Accordingly, the BDA executed the absolute sale deed in favour of the first petitioner. Pursuant to that the first petitioner made an application in Execution Case in I.A. 4 to come on record in the place of second petitioner decree holder. The respondent filed I.A. III contending that the decree holder having lost interest in the property, the decree for eviction is no longer executable and as such contended that the decree is a nullity. The trial Court upheld the objections of the respondent allowed I.A. III and dismissed I.A. IV.