SAKINA BEE Vs. MOHAMED AMEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This execution second appeal is by the 1st judgment-debtor against the order passed by the Prl Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in Ex.A.7/1973, reversing the order passed by the II Addl First Munsiff, Bangalore City, in Ex. No.1267/1965.

(2.) Respondent 1 filed an application for eviction against the appellant and respondent 2 under Cls (a) and (f) of the proviso to sub-sec (1) of S.21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the appellant who was his tenant has committed default in payment of rent and also unlawfully sublet the premises to respondent 2. The appellant and respondent 2 did not file any objections to the eviction petition. They were also not present when the case was posted for hearing. Hence, they have been placed ex parte. In these circumstances, the learned Munsiff allowed the eviction petition ex parte. The application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed, which order has been affirmed on appeal and further on revision by this Court. The 1st respondent sued out execution of the order obtained by him. The appellant opposed the said application on the ground that the order for eviction is not executable. It was contended by him that the order of execution sought to be executed has not been passed by the Court after being satisfied that the landlord has established the grounds for eviction under the relevant provisions of S.21 relied upon by him. As the landlord did not lead any evidence in support of his case and as the learned Munsiff has not stated in his order that the grounds for eviction pleaded by the landlord have been established, it was contended that the order of eviction must be regarded as one made without jurisdiction and therefore inexecutable. As this objection of the appellant found favour with the executing Court, the execution petition was dismissed on the 14th of Novr, 1972. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge set aside the order of the executing Court holding that order of eviction is executable. He further directed the executing Court to proceed to consider the application as directed by this Court in CRP 324/1971 decided on 8-10-1971 and to dispose of the execution petition in accordance with law. It is the said order that is challenged by the 1st judgment-debtor in this execution second appeal.

(3.) It was contended by Sri S.V.Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the appellant that the order of eviction sought to be executed being an ex parte order made without being satisfied that the grounds for eviction have been proved by the first respondent, the same must be regarded as one passed without jurisdiction and therefore not executable. It was contended that merely because the appellant and the 2nd respondent remained absent and had not filed any written statement or objections to the eviction petition filed by the 1st respondent and were placed ex parte, the learned Munsiff exercising jurisdiction under the Act, could not have passed an order of eviction without the 1st respondent placing evidence in support of this case.