MAHAVEERA Vs. MANGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, in possession of shop premises, are holding the fort, with their backs to the wall ; though failed in all fronts they have managed to stay, like a sinking man under an oxygen tent.

(2.) Facts, which are spread over for more than a decade, are as follows : In HRC No. 91/1975 (renumbered as HRC 5/1980), C. Mangaraj and three others initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21 (1) (i) (f) (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, in respect of shop premises, consisting of ground floor and first floor, in Nos. 984, 374/1 and 862 and 166 (new) situated at Chickpet, Bangalore. They impleaded Gevarchand and Jugraj as their tenants. The rent was claimed at Rs. 475/- per month. After serious contest, an eviction decree was passed on 12-2-1981. "Mahaveera" - registered partnership firm represented by Devichand challenged the order of eviction in C.R.P. No. 1374/1981, which was dismissed at the stage of admission, on the ground that "Mahaveera not being a party cannot challenge the said decree; this was on 13-4-1981. On 25-5-1981 "Mahaveera" filed a suit, with the following prayers, in O.S. No. 1507/1981 :-

(3.) Against the above order, "Mahaveera" filed S.L,P. No. 11021 of 1986, along with Civil Misc. Petition No, 25556 of 1986, before the Supreme Court. On 23 9-1986, S L.P. was dismissed. How- ever the Court directed the maintenance of' status-quo, regarding possession till 28-2-1987. By virtue of this order, patitioner continues to be in possession, with few more days to go. The decree-holder sued out execution in Ex. No. 3331/1986 and prayed for is us of delivery warrant against the Judgment-debtors. After service of notice, the judgment-debtors appeared and submitted that they have no objection to execute the decree; case was posied to 14-8-1986, for further steps. At this stage the firm "Mahaveera", who hid lost the battle, in C.R P. and M.F.A. and is surviving on the order of the Supreme Court (supra), filed I.A. I under Section 151 C.P.C. on 12-8 -1986, to stay the execution proceedings on the ground that the eviction decree has been staved by couit f small causes in HRC Misc. 425/1986. It is relevant to mention that on 2-9-1986, while allowing I.A. Ill the court vacated the stay order, The basis had disappeared and hence I.A I had become infructuous.