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. 811/1993 impleading Respondent No. 1 only who happens to be the husband of Respondent No.2. Since all efforts to serve the 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 passed. Consequent to that, Ex.Case No.10133/1993 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.) MR . Gupta appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by submitting that the vendor had intimated to the petitioner that it is Respondent No. 1 who is the tenant of the premises and a letter of attornment to that effect was only sent to Respondent No. 1, but the Court below has failed to give due weightage to this aspect of the matter. According to him, Parvathamma, his vendor, in her deposition which was recorded on commission has denied to have filed any eviction petition against Respondent No. 2 and therefore no credence can be given to the judicial order placed at Ex. P1. He also submits that in any view of the matter since Respondent No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2 therefore, in the eye of law he can also be deemed to be the tenant and any order of eviction passed against him will bind Respondent No. 2 as well.