T KRISHNAPPA Vs. H LINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed I.A. V and wants the Court-to consider the subsequent events and consider if the respondent has failed to establish his reasonable and bonafrde need treating the application as an I.A. in the petition or a C.P. and recall the order. The respondent-landlord opposed this application.

(2.) The petitioner has also filed IAs VII, VIII and IX under O. 47, R. 2 read with S. 151 CPC. for a direction to the respondents or his sons to produce the sale deeds referred to therein under which properties are acquired subsequent to the respondent applying for possession of the property leased and to receive the same as additional evidence.

(3.) I.A. X is an application for condoning the delay in filing I.A. V treating it as one filed under O.47, R. 1 CPC. In the affidavit in" support of this application, the petitioner has stated that the reasons for the delay have already been set out in the affidavit supporting I.A. V. The respondent in his objection has stated that the application filed for recalling the order cannot be treated as an application under O. 47, R 1 CPC. The explanations given are not true and the petitioner was aware of these transactions all along It is also contended that the application filed after 166 days is clearly barred by time and is not maintainable.