J K RAMA RAO Vs. INDIRA DEENADAYALU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 46 (1) of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999 is directed against the order dated 17. 4. 2002 passed in Execution No. 10098/1999 by the XV Additional Small Cause judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (SCCH No. 19 ). The decree holder in the execution case has come up in revision complaining that the executing Court is in error in dismissing the execution case on the premise that nothing was required to be executed in respect of the order that was sought to be executed, that the Executing Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances under which the earlier orders had come to be passed, that though the material on record did indicate that the decree holder had in fact been put in possession of the portion of the property in dispute it was factually not so, that the decree holder who was a tenant and who had been made to yield possession to the landlord on the assurance that he will be put back in possession subsequent to the demolition and reconstruction of the building having not been factually put in possession of the premises as agreed to between the parties, the executing Court should have come to the rescue of the tenant who is not factually inducted to the premises from which he had been dispossessed, that the earlier statements and submissions that had been made on behalf of the tenant decree holder before the Court was one which had been made under duress and coercion and which are not correct and did not reflect the true position and as such the court below ought to have allowed the execution and directed the decree holder to be put in possession of the portion of the property to which he was entitled to as per the earlier orders.

(2.) I have heard Sri Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhasker Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents at great length. Learned Counsel have taken me through the orders of the Court below and the records and other relevant material placed by them before the Court.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the execution petition as not tenable mainly being of the view that the order of this Court dated 30. 8. 1996 passed in HRRP No. 264/1993 and the order dated 18. 1. 1999 passed in CCC 202/1998 prima facie indicated that the dispossessed tenant has been put back into possession of the portion of the property agreed to between the parties and the decree holder tenant having himself made statement to this effect before this Court, nothing remained for execution in the present execution case. It is in this view of the matter the execution case came to be dismissed as not tenable.