S T CHOWDAIAH Vs. NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order passed is pursuant to an application filed by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 99 of C.P.C. whereby the court has held that she is entitled to be put back in possession of the schedule premises since on the date of dispossession i.e., on 6-1-1994 she was in possession of the said premises in the capacity of a tenant.

(2.) The schedule premises was originally owned by Smt. Parvathamma. The petitioner has purchased the said premises on 2-7-1992 under a registered sale deed. After purchasing the said premises the petitioner filed an eviction petition being HRC No. 811 of 1993 impleading respondent No. 1 only who happens to be the husband of respondent No. 2. Since all efforts to serve respondent No. 1 failed, steps were taken for effecting substituted service. But, respondent No. 1 did not appear in the proceeding to contest the eviction petition and accordingly an ex parte decree was passed. Consequent to that Ex. Case No. 10133 of 1993 was filed and with the help of police on 6-1-1994, Respondent No. 2 was thrown out of the premises along with her children. Aggrieved by the said action respondent No. 2 filed an application under Order 21, Rule 99 of CPC seeking restoration of possession.

(3.) The Court below keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record has held that it was respondent No. 2 who was in possession of the schedule premises as a tenant and since she was not impleaded in the eviction proceedings, the decree passed by the Court does not bind her and accordingly she is entitled to restoration of possession in her favour. While coming to that conclusion, the Court has taken note of the fact that earlier the previous owner Parvathamma had filed an eviction petition being HRC No. 416 of 1987 for eviction of respondent No. 2 from the schedule premises by admitting her as the only tenant, under various clauses of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 which came to be dismissed on 20-7-1990. Certified copy of the Judgment passed in the said case has been filed as Ex. P.1. It has been further noticed from Exs. P.3 to P.5, which were Money Order coupons dated 9-2-1991, 8-4-1992 and 21-1-1992 that the rents remitted by respondent No. 2 had been duly received by the previous owner Smt. Parvathamma. Ex. P.6 is the Money Order coupon sent by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner remitting Rs. 800/- as rent which has been refused by the petitioner. Ex. P.2 is the ration card produced by respondent No. 2 which shows her to be the occupant of the premises where she had been living with her three children.