M M MATHEW Vs. PRAFULCHAND AMRITLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A frivolous, unjust and a desperate attempt made by the petitioners, who are the judgment debtors, to delay and defeat decrees for eviction made against them, as early as on 28.11.1973 by the trial Court in proceedings instituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act of 1961 (Karnataka Act No- 22 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relentlessly fought and lost before the District Court, this Court and ultimately before the Supreme Court of India, on the basis of a contention urged in these cases, which is also concluded against them by the consistent rulings of this Court, can even be rejected by just noticing their contention and the rulings of this Court on the point. But, I do not propose to do so, out of deference to Sri S. K. Kulkarni, learnedi counsel for the petitioners, who addressed elaborate and serious arguments on their behalf. In order to appreciate the contentions urged before me in these cases, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not in dispute in the first instance.

(2.) The three petitioners are in occupation of different portions of premises bearing CTS No. 1015-A/3 situated in Ward No. III of Hubli City, Dharwar District having taken their respective portions on lease from one Sri K.V.Kulkarni, who was its then owner. On 28-7-1972, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and his father Amritlal Singala, who were carrying on autmobile business in a rented premises in the same city and were facing eviction from their landlord, purchased the premises for valuable consideration with the object of shifting their business to the premises. After exchange of notices the respondent and his father commenced actions in H.R.C. Nos.256, 258 and 286 of 1972 against the petitioners in the Court of the Munsiff, Hubli, for their eviction which was congested by them. Before the termination of the said proceedings in the said Court, the father of the respondent died and the respondent continued the said proceedings. On 28-11-1973 the learned Munsiff allowed the said applications and passed decrees for eviction against the petitioners, which was unsuccessfully challenged by them in H.R.C. Appeal Nos. 18, 31 and 32 of 1974 before the District Judge, Dharwar. Against the said orders, the, petitioners filed; C.R.P. Nos- 1916, 1939 and 1940 of 1975 before this Court. On 20-2-1976, Venkatachaliah, J. dismissed the said revision petitions granting 8 months time from that day to the petitioners to vacate the premises. Special Leave Petitions Nos. 2605 to 2607 of 1976 filed by the petitioners against the said orders of this Court were rejected by the Supreme Court on 10-12-1976 after notice to the respondent.

(3.) On the termination of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the respondent sued out execution of the decrees before the Munsiff in Execution petitions Nos. 32, 33 and 34 of 1977 which were again, resisted by the petitioners. On 22-3-1979 the executing Court, overruled the objections filed by the petitioners and directed the executions to be proceeded with. Against the said order, the petitioners filed C.R.P. Nos. 984, 985 and 993 of 1979 before this Court inter-alia urging the very grounds urged by them in these petitions. On 4-4-1979 Mahendra, J. stayed the further proceedings of the aforesaid executions till 4-5-1979 to enable the petitioners to seek clarification, elucidation or review of the order made by the Supreme Court on 10-12-1976 in S.L.P-Nos, 2605 to 2607 of 1976. Thereafter the petitioners filed review petitions before the Supreme Court seeking for review of the orders made in the said Special Leave Petitions which have also been rejected and thereafter on 23-5-1979 Mahendra, J. dismissed the said revision petitions.