VISHNU CBINTAMAN SHIRALKAR Vs. GURUPAD SHIVARAM KELAVEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for consideration in this revision petition is whether even after evictionorder was passed by the Rent Control Courtagainst the present revision petitioner his continuationin possession of the petition premisesand payment of rent would amount to revival ofold tenancy or renewal of tenancy.

(2.) The facts briefly are to be found in the order of the Court below which is now impugned. In Execution Petition No. 60/1980 the decree-holder-respondent took out execution for evictionof the petitioner in pursuance of the decreehe had obtained in HRC 62/1974 before theCourt of I Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum. the decree isdated 19-11-1974 which was an ex-pane decree.The suit filed by the petitioner to set-aside thatex-parte decree on the ground that he was misledby the decree-holder-landlord or fraud was practicedon him was not upheld by the Court. Thusdecree for eviction passed on 19-11-1974 stood.Till 1930 it appears execution was not taken outby the respondent-decree-holder. When executionapplication was filed the petitioner-JudgmentDebtor contended that originally he hadtaken premises on rent on a monthly rental of Rs.14/-.He paid at that rate till 1973. It was enhancedto Rs. 16/- per month which was the rateof rent when the decree for eviction came to bepassed. After this eviction decree there wasrevival of the tenancy on fresh terms in 1975fixing the rental at Rs. 20/- per month. Again on1-1-1978 the terms of the tenancy revived fixingthe rent at Rs. 25/- per month. The decree-holderhad also issued rent receipts and therefore thiscontention of the petitioner-Judgment Debtorhas all the force.

(3.) The Executing Court considering the contentions of the parties and also the material placed before it came to the conclusion thatthere was neither revival of the tenancy nor a newtenancy was created. Even though the petitioneralso disputed the identity of the property theCourt below did not find any merit in that contention.As the Executing Court allowed the executionof the decree in question theJudgment-Debtor has come up in revision to thisCourt.