CHAMPALAL JAIN Vs. M SUPERCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. The respondents 1 to 9 herein filed R.C.O.P. 3297/91 for eviction on the ground of unauthorised sub-lease, R.C.O.P. 3183/91 for fixation of fair rent and R.C.O.P. 776/92 for eviction on the ground of wilful default. All the R.C.O.Ps were filed against Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, who is the tenant of the premises. There is no dispute that the respondents had purchased the property.

(2.) R.C.O.P. 776/92 was decreed ex parte on 30.4.92. The respondents filed execution petition in E.P. 638/92 to execute the order of eviction. Mr. Champalal Jain, the petitioner in C.R.P. 1689/96, one of the petitioners in C.R.P. 1802/96 filed M.P. 614/93 in E.P. 638/92 in R.C.O.P. 776/92 under Section 47 C.P.C. contending that the ex parte order of eviction cannot be executed, as the same is a collusive and fraudulent one. He also filed application M.P. 1056/92 to implead himself as party/respondent in the said Execution Petition. One Mrs. Mahender Kaur, the petitioner in C.R.P. 1801/93. one of the petitioner in C.R.P. 1802/96 has filed M.P. 1057/92 to implead him as party/respondent in the said Execution Petition. The Rent Controller had dismissed all the applications by common order dated 19.8.94 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, Mr. Champalal Jain preferred an appeal in R.C.A. 714/94 before the Appellate Authority against the order in M.P. 1056/92 in E.P. 638/92 in R.C.O.P. 776/92. Mr. Mahender Kaur also preferred an appeal R.C.A. 716/94 against the order of dismissal in M.P. 1057/92 in the above said Execution Petition. The Appellate Authority by common order dated 21.3.96 had dismissed the said appeals, against which they have preferred revisions in C.R.P. 1689/96 and C.R.P. 1801/96 respectively before this Court. Mr. Champalal Jain did not prefer any appeal against the order in M.P. 614/93 which was filed under Section 47, C.P.C. (In the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller it is mentioned as Mrs. Mahendra Kaur. The mistake has happened because it is so described in some of the petitions; whereas Mahendra Kaur had signed. Hence it has to be taken that only Mr. Mahendra Kaur is the petitioner)

(3.) THE Rent Controller dismissed the said application on 27.4.94 and subsequently passed an order of eviction by allowing the R.C.O.P. on 29.4.94.