P JANAKARAJ Vs. S BALASUBRAHMANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE backdrop of the case can be summarised as follows: During the course of this order, the parties would be referred to as per the ranking in the executing Court. Way back in the year 1994, the first decree holder initiated eviction proceedings against the judgment debtors under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act' ). It is not necessary for us to look into the averments made in the rent control proceedings except noticing that the petition was for bonafide requirement. The Court of the first instance allowed the eviction petition, as against which a revision was preferred. The said revision was dismissed as against which the judgment debtors preferred HRRP No. 1870/1996 before this Court. This Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Court below. While disposing of the revision petition, this Court observed thus:

(3.) INCIDENTALLY, it is required to be noticed that the property in question was sold by the first decree holder in favour of the decree holders 2 and 3, pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 18. 06. 2007. Hence they joined decree holder No. 1 in filing the execution petition. In the said execution proceedings, two applications were filed by the judgment debtors.