RAFI Vs. AYISUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 173/2019 in R.C.P. No. 32/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi and the respondent herein is the decree holder in the said EP. This O.P. (RC) is filed against the common order passed in E.A. No. 255/2019 and E.A. No. 1/2020 in E.P. No. 173/2019 in R.C.P. No. 32/2013. E.A. No. 255/2019 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for providing police aid to Amin to effect delivery of the plaint schedule shop room. E.A. No. 1/2020 was filed by the petitioner herein for staying the execution proceedings till the disposal of O.S. No. 298/2019 pending before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. E.P. No. 173/2019 was filed for delivery of the plaint schedule shop rooms in execution of the order of eviction passed in R.C.P. No. 32/2013. According to the respondent, on 11.10.2019, the Amin came to the shop room to effect delivery of the shop rooms, but the brother of the petitioner and his men obstructed the same, so the property was not delivered. According to her, this Court had granted six months time to the petitioner to vacate the premises on condition to pay the arrears of rent and to file an affidavit with an undertaking to vacate the property unconditionally. Both these conditions were not complied by the petitioner. Now the petitioner is trying to delay the execution of the property. The respondent wants to store the materials for business in the petition schedule property. It is necessary to get the vacant possession of the building. Hence, she filed E.A. No. 255/2019 seeking an order granting police aid to amin to effect delivery of the property.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed a counter stating that he is in possession of the shop room bearing No. XIII/218 (new number XII/679) in Tanur Panchayat belonging to one Jameela and the respondent had obtained order of eviction in respect of shop room bearing No. XIII/213 (new number XII/675) in Tanur Panchayat. Therefore, now the delivery is sought against the shop room, which was not scheduled in the rent control petition or the order of eviction passed in favour of the respondent. In the above context the person in possession of the room informed the dispute in respect of the identity of the shop room to the amin. Now the respondent is trying to get vacant possession of another room with respect to which there is no order of eviction.

(3.) The petitioner herein filed E.A. No. 1/2020 stating that the number of shop room shown in the petition as well as in the decree is not correct. The petitioner herein is doing business in shop room bearing No. XIII/218 (new number XII/679) in Tanur Panchayat. The respondent/landlord is not the owner of the said building; but in the rent control petition, the respondent shown the room No. XIII/213 and sought for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. When the petitioner was searching for a room, one Kunhava, took him to the respondent and she made the petitioner to believe that she is the owner of the building and a lease agreement was erroneously entered into between them. On that belief the petitioner has been paying rent to the respondent. But the respondent has committed fraud on the petitioner and on the original owner. The respondent obtained a decree committing fraud on the court. When the petitioner came to know all these things, he filed a suit against the respondent as O.S. No. 298/2019. The reliefs sought for in the aforesaid O.S. are as follows: