NEELACANTA PILLAI Vs. CHELLIAN NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in E. P. No. 835 of 1959 are the appellants herein. E.P.No. 835 of 1959 was filed by the judgment -debtor defendant for re -delivery of the property under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal, it was ordered. This appeal is against the order directing re -delivery.

(2.) THE facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be stated.

(3.) THE suit O.S. No. 642 of 1956 was filed on 22nd November, 1956 for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. On 26th June, 1958, the suit was decreed fixing the arrears of rent at Rs. 45.10 and future rent at the rate of Rs. 70 per annum, which was modified on appeal fixing the future rent at Rs. 42. In other respects, the decree of the trial Court was confirmed. In pursuance of the decree, the decree -holders obtained an order of delivery on 27th September, 1958 and delivery was in fact effected on 3rd October, 1958. On 17th October, 1958, the judgment -debtor filed an application E.A. No. 1980 of 1958 for re -delivery claiming benefit under Act VIII of 1950. Ten days later, i.e., on 27th October, 1958, he deposited Rs. 28 as arrears of rent. The re -delivery application was dismissed on 3rd March, 1959 and the appeal A.S. No. 246 of 1959 filed by the defendant was allowed and re -delivery was ordered. Against the judgment, the appellants filed C.M.S.A. No. 10 of 1960 before the High Court. Pending disposal of the appeal, the respondent -defendant filed E. P. No. 835 of 1959 for re -delivery under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, out of which the present appeal arises. This Court allowed C.M. S.A. No. 10 of 1960 and remanded E.A. No. 1980 of 1958 which was filed by the respondent -defendant for fresh disposal. After remand, in the first Court, the respondent -defendant did not press E.A. No. 1980 of 1958 and it was dismissed. E.P.No. 835 of 1959 was heard by the District Munsif. He held that the defendant is not entitled to re -delivery since he was in arrears on the date of delivery of possession. An appeal, C.M.A. No. 88 of 1965 was preferred by the defendant and the Appellate Court remanded, E.A. No. 835 of 1959 to the first Court for fresh disposal according to law on 26th April, 1966. The decree -holders preferred C.M.A. No. 74 of 1967 to the High Court against the order of remand made by the first appellate Court. The order of remand was set aside by this Court on 28th January, 1967 and the appellate Court was directed to dispose of the appeal according to law. The appeal was numbered as C.M.A. No. 1 of 1970, and the Lower Appellate Court allowed that appeal and directed re -delivery of possession. Against the order in C.M. A. No. 1 of 1970, the decree -holders have preferred this appeal.