SAROJAMMA Vs. ILIYAS AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is preferred against the order of eviction dated 21-1-1985 passed by the XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in H.R.C. No. 970/83. Records of the original and execution proceedings are obtained.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant was granted one year for vacating the schedule premises which expired on 21-1-1986. After the expiry of that period, the petitioner has filed the top noted C.R.P. against the order of eviction along with an application for condonation of delay. On 29-1-1986 this Court has directed issue of emergent notice to the respondent and has also issued interim order staying further proceedings in H.R.C. No. 970 of 1983 on the file of XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, for a period of six weeks from 29-1-1986. The interim order is passed in terms of the prayer made in the application for stay. Though the prayer made in the application is not properly worded, the effect of the interim order is to stay the operation of the order of eviction passed in the aforesaid H.R.C. 970 of 1983.

(3.) On 22-1-1986 the respondent-landlord filed an execution petition being Execution Case No. 356/86 before the Court below. The Court passed an order on 24-1-1986 directing issue of delivery of possession warrant returnable by 5-2-1986. Pursuant to that the delivery of possession warrant dated 27-1-1986 as the records reveal appears to have been handed over to the Court Bailiff by name D. Puttaswamy on 28-1-1986, who went to the spot on 30-1-1986 to deliver possession of the premises in question to the respondent landlord. According to the mahazar drawn by the Bailiff, he went to the spot at about 8-30 a.m. on 30-1-1986. The petitioner sought for an hour to vacate. At that time, Learned Counsel for the petitioner also appeared on the spot and brought to the notice of the Bailiff that the High Court had passed an interim order staying the operation of the order of eviction, therefore he may be granted time till 10-30 a.m. to produce the slay order. The Bailiff did not heed to the request and proceeded to execute the order and delivered possession of the premises to the respondent by 9-45 a.m. (see delivery of possession receipt executed by the respondent). In view of this, the petitioner has filed the application (I.A. Ill) on 31-1-1986 for restoration of possession. Notice was ordered by telegraphic communication to the respondent on 31-1-1986. Pursuant to that, the respondent and his Counsel both are present in the Court and the respondent has also filed the objections. Both the parties are heard.