PUSHPAMMAL Vs. GANAPATHRAJ KISHANCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder's wife Pushpammal had filed an eviction case under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in H.R.C.No. 7346 of 1980 against the judgment-debtor alleging that she required the petition premises bona fide and reasonably for the use of her husband and also alleging that her husband was going to retire in a short time and that the pension that he might get was insufficient for the maintenance of herself and her husband and that her husband would start a cycle shop in the petition premises and augment the income. The said eviction case in H.R.C. No. 7346/1980 resulted in an order of eviction as per the order dated 31-7-1982. The judgment-debtor being "aggrieved by the said order of eviction approached this Court in C.R.P. No. 1922 of 1983. In the said Revision the judgment-debtor did not challenge the findings recorded by the Court below, and requested only for time to vacate the petition premises. The decree-holder had remained absent in the said revision. This Court dismissed the Revision by giving to the judgment-debtor time till the end of November, 1984, subject to the condition that the judgment-debtor should continue to pay the amount equivalent to the rent during the period of bis occupation and that he should not damage the premises and should not induct any third person into it and should deliver vacant possession of the same to the landlady on or before 30th November, 1984.

(2.) It is undisputed that the landlady Pushpammal died on 4-7-1984. The landlady's husband, i.e., the present decree-holder issued a notice to the judgment-debtor calling upon him to hand over vacant possession of the premises on the date stipulated by the Court. The judgment-debtor rushed to the Court and filed a suit for a permanent injunction alleging that the order of eviction on account of the subsequent event i.e., the death of the landlady, had become inexecutable and he sought for temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was refused and he withdrew the suit. Thereafter, he filed a Misc. Case No. 10114 of 1984 under Section 47 of the C.P.C. alleging that on account of the subsequent event, i.e., the death of the landlady Pushpammal the order of eviction had become inexecutable. The landlady's husband, that is the present decree-holder, sued out execution in Execution No. 10338 of 1985. In that execution the judgment-debtor raised a contention that the decree bad become inexecutable in view of the subsequent event i.e., the death of the landlady. The executing Court upheld the contention of the judgment debtor and dismissed the execution on 3-10-1985. Hence, the decree-holder being aggrieved by the dismissal of the execution has approached this Court with C.R.P.No. 67 of 1986. The Court below allowed the Misc.Case No. 10114/84 filed under Section 47 C.P.C. Hence the decree-holder being aggrieved by the said order passed in Misc. case has approached this Court with C.R.P. No. 3852 of 1985.

(3.) That the landlady Pushpammal died on 4-7-1984 is undisputed.