GULABI HENGSU Vs. VASU KOTTARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred against the order dated 5-6-1986 passed by the 1st Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in Execution Case No. 151 of 1985 filed for execution of the order of eviction passed in H.R.C No. 61 of 1973. Learned Munsiff has held that the execution petition is maintainable and it need not be stayed pending consideration of the application in Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner (Judgrnent-Debtor) before the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and has, accordingly, over ruled the objections raised by the petitioner and has ordered the execution to proceed.

(2.) Facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised by both the sides, are not in dispute. The property involved in this case is a tiled-house bearing Door No. 3-1343 situated in eastern portion of Sy.No. 50-E7, Nanja land measuring O. 17 1/2 cents of Padavu Village in the Kadri Ward of the Corporation of the City of Mangalore. The respondent is the landlord of the premises. He filed H.R.C.No. 61 of 1973 in the Court of the 1st Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds falling under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In that proceeding the petitioner-tenant raided an objection that she is an agricultural tenant and the open site in Sy. No. 50/E7 measuring 17 1/2 cents is an agricultural land, therefore, it is necessary to refer an issue relating to. agricultural tenancy to the Land Tribunal. She also specifically filed an application (I.A.IV) for this purpose. On 5-6-1976 the Trial Court passed an order referring the issue of tenancy to the Land Tribunal, Mangalore. That order was challenged before the District Judge, Mangalore, in C.R P.No. 76 of 1976. Learned District Judge, by his order dated 20-7-1976, came to the conclusion that the Trial Court should first decide the preliminary question as to whether the property involved is or is not a "premises" as defined in the Act and if it comes to the conclusion that the property is not a "premises" as defined in the Act, then only it would not have jurisdiction to try the eviction petition. Accordingly, the District Judge allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to decide the question in the light of the observations made in the order. This order of the District Judge was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7514 of 1976 and the same was dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) In the meanwhile, it is also brought to my notice that the petitioner had filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, for registering him as an occupant in respect of the property which was the subject matter in the aforesaid proceeding under the Act. It is that property which is involved in the subject matter of this Civil Eviction Petition. Form No. 7 was rejected on 27-4-1977 by the Land Tribunal in proceeding No. LRC/1258/75-76 holding that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and the property was not an agricultural land at all. This order of the Land Tribunal was not challenged until Writ Petition NO. 7514 of 1976 was disposed of on 14-10-1977 as having become infructuous in view of the fact that the application filed in Form No. 7 was rejected by the Land Tribunal in No. LRC. 1258 of 1975-76 by its order dated 27-4-1977. This order of the Land Tribunal was not challenged until 18-1-1978. The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 27-4-1977 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in Form No. 7, only after Writ Petition No. 7514 of 1976 was dismissed by this Court on 14-10-1977 as having become infructuous. The order dated 14-10-1977 passed in Writ Petition No. 7514 of 1976 was also not taken up in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.