LAWS(KAR)-2008-10-1

S S M AND SONS Vs. NANJAMMA

Decided On October 15, 2008
S S M AND SONS Appellant
V/S
NANJAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions are filed by the applicants who had filed I. A. Nos. X, XI and XVI before the Court below, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the same by order dated 11-12-2001 in Execution Petition No. 8611/1993.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that one Smt. Nanjamma and her son Sri Rajanna who are since deceased and Rajanna being represented by his legal representatives, had filed an eviction petition in HRC No. 2844/ 1981 against the tenants in respect of premises bearing Nos. 100 and 102 which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'schedule premises' under Section 21 (l) (a), (f), (h) and (p) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as it then existed, before the Court of Small Causes at bangalore. By the order dated 28-3-1987, the said eviction petition was allowed under Section 21 (l) (h) directing the tenants to vacate the premises within six months from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, CRP No. 4321/1987 and CRP No. 1262/ 1987 was preferred by the tenants. This Court, by a common order dated 3-9-1992, dismissed both the revision petitions granting one year's time to the tenants from the date of the order to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlords viz. , Nanjamma and rajanna. During the pendency of the said revision petitions, Rajanna died on 30-10-1987 and his legal representatives were brought on record.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 8-10-1993, execution petition was filed by only the legal representatives of Rajanna in Execution Petition No. 8611/1993. It is significant that though nanjamma was shown as a petitioner in the execution petition, she had not signed the same and therefore had not joined the legal representatives of Rajanna in preferring the said execution petition. During the pendency of the said execution petition, an application was filed by one Maganlal under Order XXI, rules 97 to 99, C. P. C. (I. A. No. 2) contending that he is the son of one of the tenants in respect of the scheduled premises. During the pendency of the said application, Nanjamma died on 28-8-1996. I. A. No. 2 came to be dismissed by an order dated 16-11-1996. There was no challenge made to the said order and hence, the same has attained finality.