ARJANADAS JHAMATMAL SADARANGANI Vs. FATIMA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an application made in OS.322 74 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Civil Staltion, Bangalore, for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from executing the order for eviction passed under the House Rent Control Act. The trial Court refused to pass an order of temporary injunction and that order has been affirmed on appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in MA.10/74. Hence this revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner who has been aggrieved by the order of the Courts below.

(2.) Briefly Stated, the facts are: The suit relates to certain business premises in the City of Bangalore. The landlord filed eviction petition in HRC.188/69 in the Court of the Munsiff, Civil Station. The party respondent in the HRC case has been described as Jhamatmal Sons. Notice of that petition was served on respondent 4. The mother of respondent 4 however contested the proceedings before the HRC Court. The Munsiff dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal by the landlord, that order of the Munsiff was affirmed; but on a revision petition filed by the landlord the orders of the Courts below were reversed and an order for eviction was made granting one year's time for the tenant to vacate the premises. When the landlord filed execution for delivery of possession, the petitioner instituted OS.322/74 seeking the relief of declaration that the order of eviction obtained by respondents 1 and 2 is a nullity as the sons of Jhamatmal Rawachand Sadarangani and other heirs were not made parties to the proceedings and prayed for a perpetual injunction against the landlord from executing the order of eviction.

(3.) The case of the petitioner who is the plaintiff is that the premises had been taken on lease by his father the late J. R. Sadarangani who was carrying on business under the name and style of Jhamatmal Sons and that on the death of the said J. R. Sadarangani the business devolved on his sons and widow and since they had not been impleaded as parties to the eviction petition, the decree is a nullity.