M. PRABHAKAR Vs. V. VENKATASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords have made this interlocutory application with a prayer to recall the order dated 30.6.1982 passed by this Court on I.A. No. V made by the tenant.

(2.) A few facts necessary for disposal of the IA stated in brief are as follows : The landlords sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground mentioned in clause (h) of sub -section (1) of Section 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 referred a revision as provided under Section 50(1) of the Act. Then the matter came before Mahendra, J., 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, subject to the condition that the tenant would regularly pay or deposit the rent for every month within 15th of the succeeding months 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.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that on the Counsel for the landlord refusing to receive the copy of IA he had served the same on the landlord by registered post. Though by IA V the tenant had sought for extension of the time till 30.6.1983, that 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 in support of IA 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 September, 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 rime that is sought to be recalled by the landlords by IA VI.