G RAMAKRISHNA AITHAL Vs. Y VARADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the Judgment-debtor (Jdr.) against the order dated 11.1.1984 passed by the IXth Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City in execution case No.3656 of 1983 holding that the execution petition is maintainable and that the court has got jurisdiction to execute the decree.

(2.) The Jdr. filed an eviction petition in HRC Case No.355/68 in the Court of the I Munsiff, Bangalore City for recovering possession under S.21(l)(j).It was dismissed by the trial Court. Then the matter was taken up by the landlord to the District Judge in HRC Appeal NO.23/1974. The District Judge allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction under s.21(1)(j). The tenant approached this Court in CRP.774 of 1976. in CRP 774/1976, they entered into a compromise. On 25.7.1980, a decree in terms of the compromise was ordered to be drawn up, by this Court.

(3.) After the compromise decree was drawn up, the landlord obtained a sanctioned plan. It is undisputed that he has put up a cellar and a row of four shops and a first floor on the said four shops after demolishing a portion of the building. It is undisputed that the landlord is still keeping intact a major portion of the building, even though he obtained a decree for demolition and reconstruction. Notwithstanding the notice issued by the tenant to the landlord to put him in possession of any one of the four shops, the landlord did not comply with his request. Therefore, the tenant sued out the execution praying that he should be put in possession of anyone of the four shops constructed by the landlord.