PRABHAKAR M Vs. V VENKATASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords have made this interlocutory application with a prayer to recall the order dt. 30-6-1982 passed by this Court on I A No. V made by the tenant. A few facts necessary for disposal of the I A stated in brief are as follows : The landlords sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground mentioned in Cl. (h) of sub- sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), from the premises in his occupation in HRC No. 2639/75, on the file of the III Addl Civil Judge, Bangalore City, and obtained the order of eviction. Since the tenant was running a printing press in the premises in his occupation, while making the order of eviction, the Court below also granted certain time to give vacant possession, obviously In exercise of inherent powers of the Court for the ends of justice. The tenant being aggrieved by the order of eviction preferred a revision as provided under S. 50 (1) of the Act. When the matter came before Mahendra, 3., the parties entered into a compromise, in terms of which the tenant agreed to vacate the premises as ordered by the Court on or before 30 6 1982. That was, however, sub ject to the condition that the tenant would regularly pay or deposit the rent for every month within the 15th of the succeeding month and on his failing to do so for two months, the landlord would be at liberty to take out execution and recover possession. Consequently, the order of eviction passed by the Court below was confirmed subject to the modification as indicated in the compromise memo and the revision filed by the tenant was dismissed.

(2.) Therefore, on 23 6-1982, before the time fixed could run out, the tenant made I A V for extension of time invoking the provisions of S. 151 of CPC on the ground that in spite of efforts made by him, he was not able to get any alternative accommodation so far. On 30-6-1982, by special order of the Chief Justice, 1A V was posted before me for orders. The counsel appearing for the tenant moved the Court to take I A V for orders in the early hours and it was posted before the Court for orders at 2 30 PM.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that on the Counsel of the landlord refusing to receive the copy of I A he had served the same on the landlord by registered post. Though by I A V the tenant had sought for extension of of time till 30 6 1983, yet having regard to the fact that the time originally granted to the tenant was to expire by 30-6 1982 itself and in the affidavit n support of I A V the tenant had also stated that he has been paying the rent regularly and had not committed any default in payment of rent, without notice to the landlord time was extended for three more months. It was also made clear that the tenant should hand over possession of the premises by the end of Sept., 1982, and again subject to the same condition that he shall also continue to pay the rent regularly. It is this order made regarding the extension of time that is sought to be recalled by the landlords by I A VI.