(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 46 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Act is directed against the order dated 3-1-2002 passed in Miscellaneous Petition no. 157 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Small Causes Judge, bangalore. The Trial Court having allowed the miscellaneous petition which had been filed under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC and having set aside the earlier order of eviction that had been passed in H. R. C. No. 2032 of 1992, dated 6-1-1994, the aggrieved respondent in the miscellaneous case who was the petitioner in the HRC and in whose favour the eviction order had been passed is before this Court.
(2.) H. R. C. No. 2032 of 1992 had been filed before the Court below praying for an order of eviction as against the respondent in this revision petition on the grounds of bona fide use and occupation of the landlady.
(3.) THE respondent having been set ex parte, the petition came to be allowed on 6-1-1994 and an eviction order had been passed. It appears that this eviction order was put into operation by instituting Execution Case No. 4719 of 1996. The execution case was also closed and the premises in question was taken possession and after dispossessing the occupants therein as on 11-3-1998. It appears, thereafter, the respondent herein also describing as Venkatamma W/o. late Venkatappa and her son Krishnappa had filed applications under Order 21, Rules 92 to 101 read with Sections 47 and 151 of the CPC before the Executing Court contending that they have been in possession in their own right and that they have been illegally dispossessed and for restoration of their possession. However, by an order dated 7-10-1998, the application that had been filed by these persons were dismissed and in the objections that had been filed by the decree-holder to the effect that the application that had been filed by the two persons under Order 21, Rules 97 to 101 was not maintainable, as they were the respondents in the hrc case and not third parties. The execution petition came to be closed.