M P ABDUL KHANDER Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the judgment debtor (sub-tenant of the original tenant against whom the order of eviction was passed) against the order dated December 11, 1984, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Madikeri, in Execution Case No. 95 of 1982 overruling the objections of the present revision petitioner.

(2.) The Vijaya Bank Ltd. Madikeri, had filed an eviction case in H.R.C. No.12 of 1966 in the court of the Munsiff, Madikeri, under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Controal Act against the tenant, M.P. Abdul Rahman. The eviction was ordered on July 7, 1967. The tent, Abdual Rahman, not being satisfied with the eviction order, approached the District Judge, Courage, in H.R.C.A. No.10 of 1967. The learned District Judge, by his rider dated July 2, 1968, set said the order of eviction passed by the learned Munsiff and dismissed the eviction petition. The landlord, Vijaya Bank Ltd., not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned District judge, approached this court with C.R.P. No. 1803 of 1968. This court passed an order on June 23, 1972, setting aside the order of the learned Districts Judge and restoring the order of eviction passed by the learned Munsiff. The landlord, Vijaya bank Ltd. after succeeding in this court, sued out execution in Execution Case No. 41 of 1973. In that execution, the trivision petitioner filed an implead-ing application not the ground that he had become a sub-tenant in 1966 and that he was not a party to the eviction proceedings and, therefore, the order of evictri on could not be executed against him. It was rejected by the executing court on December 6,1973. The present revision petitioner, not being satisfied with that order, approached this court with C.R.P. No. 1969 of 1973. This court, by its order dated February 21, 1974, set said the order passed by the executing court ordered that he should be impleaded. He then approached the Munsiff's Court, Madikeri, with O.S. No. 70 of 1973 seeking a declaration that the order of eviction passed in H.R.C. No. 12 of 166 was not binding on hi as he was only a subtenant. That suit was dismissed on December 12, 1974. The landlord sued out execution in Execution Case No. 214 of 1974. The present revision petitioner, not being satisfied with the dismissal of O.C. No. 70 of 1973, approached the court of the Civil Judge, Madikeri, with R.N. No. 38 of 1974. In the said regular appeal, Execution Case No. 214 of 1974 was stayed. The said appeal was dismissed on October 31, 1975. The landlord again filed Execution Case No. 390 of 1975. The present revision petitioner, not being satisfied with the dismissal of R.N. No. 38of 1974 approached this Court with R.S.A. No. 145 of 1976. Execut wn Case No. 390 of 1975 was stayed in this appeal. The said R.S.A. was dismissed on merits on August 13, 1982. The original tenant, Abdul Rahman, died during the pendency of the R.A.S. in 1980. The landlord sued out execution in Execution Case No. 95 of 1982 on December 13, 1982. The present revision petitioner filed objections in the execution contending that on account of nationalisation of banks including the Vijaya Bank Ltd., the premises became public premises within the meaning of section 2(e) of thee Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and that in view of section 15 of the said Act, the decree had become unexecutable. The Act nationalising the banks came into force on April 15, 1980. The court below overruled the objections of the judgment debtor. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) This is a Typical example where the universal proposition that the pain of the decree-holder starts only after the decree, is quite obvious. In Babu Lal v. Hazari Kishori Lal, AIR1982 SC 818 , 1982 (1 )SCALE79 , (1982 )1 SCC525 , [1982 ]3 SCR94 , 1982 (14 )UJ492 (SC ), the Supreme Court stated in para as " the present petition is a typical example of the desperate effort of the judgment-debtor to ward off the execution of the decree till the bailiff knocks at the door."