SREEDHARAN Vs. SEETHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is unnecessary to serve notice on respondents 4 to 7. The petitioner filed R. C. P. No. 56/80 under Ss. 11 (2), II (3) and II (4) (iii) of the Rent Control Act for recovery of the premises, against respondents 4 to 7 herein, who are the legal representatives of one gopalan. who had executed the koolikychit Document No. 880/1939 in favour of the petitioner-landlord. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on the ground of arrears of rent only. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order. However, the District Court in revision allowed the petition on the ground of bonafide need also. Respondents 4 to 7 challenged the order of the revisional court in crp. 3532/83 before this court. The C. R. P. was dismissed on 17-7-1985. Against the said order, respondents 4 to 7 filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12529 of 1985 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while dismissing the Special leave Petition passed the following order: "after hearing counsel appearing on both sides we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for interference by this Court under article 136 of the Constitution. However, we feel that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner-tenants should be given a fairly long period of time to vacate and surrender possession of the premises from which they have been ordered to be evicted. We accordingly direct that the order for eviction passed against the petitioners shall not be enforced against them for a period of two years from today subject to the condition that the petitioners shall file an undertaking in this Court on or before 9th of May, 1986 on usual terms solemnly undertaking to deliver peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before the expiry of the aforesaid period of two years; It is brought to our notice that some persons claiming to be the successors in interest of Gopalan deceased father of the petitioners have instituted certain independent proceedings in respect of the petitioners' property. Whatever may be the result of those proceedings any order passed therein or in any appeal, or revision there-from shall not stand in the way of the order for eviction passed against the petitioners being enforced against them after the aforesaid period of two years nor absolve the petitioners from their responsibilities and obligations arising under the undertaking to be given by them to this Court. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in terms of this order". Since respondents 4 to 7 failed to give the undertaking highlighted in the above order, the Supreme Court passed another order dated 4-11-1986. It reads: - "since the undertaking as contemplated by the order of this court dated April 15, 1986 has not been filed by all the petitioners and is also not in the proper form, the direction contained in the order that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises for a period of two years from its date, the order dated April 15, 1986 hereby stands vacated and the decree shall be executed forthwith",

(2.) THE petitioner in the meantime bad filed E. P. 246/85 for execution of the order. As per the directions of the execution court, the premises was taken delivery of by the petitioner on 10-1-1987.

(3.) THE above position notwithstanding the members of the so called joint family have initiated proceedings numberless, to see that the decree-bolder is deprived of the fruits of the decree, be has obtained after a prolonged fight, right from the Rent Control Court till the last Court in the country namely, the Supreme Court. A word about the conduct of the respondents in this context is unavoidable. THE Supreme Court had given two years' time to respondents 4 to 7 who, on their own showing, are members of the joint family, to put the petitioner landlord in possession of the premises. THE order of the supreme Court therefore is binding on all the members of the joint family, assuming the tenancy was in favour of the joint family. If it is the other way about, the other members of the joint family have absolutely no manner of right over this premises. THEir claim that they are in possession of the premises is not supported by any material, other than the document under which Gopalan admittedly was holding the same.