VISALAKSHAMMA Vs. BALAJI AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision Petition the landlord has questioned the legality and correctness of the Trial Court's order directing redelivery of possession of the non-residential premises in question to the tenant by way of restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The landlord sought for eviction of the tenant from the non-residential premises in H.R.C. No. 1361 of 1973 on several grounds under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act). On 7-4-1975 an exparte eviction order came to be passed against the tenant therein by the Trial Court. In Execution case No. 242 of 1975 possession of the premises came 'to be delivered in pursuance of the said exparte order on 9-10-1975. On 11-10-1975 the tenant filed H.R.C. Misc. No. 136 of 1975 before the Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte order passed in the aforesaid eviction proceedings. The said Petition was ultimately allowed in revision by the District Court, Bangalore, by its order dated 14-12-1976 whereby the ex parte eviction order passed in H.R.C. No. 1361 of 1973 was set aside. Thereafter the tenant filed a Petition under Section 144 of the C.P.C. in H.R.C. Misc. 75 of 1977 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for restitution of the premises from which he had been dispossessed by the landlord by virtue of the ex parte order of eviction. The tenant also bought for payment of damages and interest which according to him accrued on account of his dispossession.

(3.) Upon consideration of the matter the Trial Court held that the tenant is entitled to the restitution and directed the landlord to put the tenant in vacant possession of the premises. The other question regarding damages was kept pending. The correctness and legality of the said order is challenged in this Revision Petition by the landlord, who obtained stay not only of the impugned order but also the eviction proceedings pendings before the Trial Court.