MOHMAD HUSSEN SHAMSHODDIN Vs. FAKRUDDIN ABASALI MOMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a landlord of the suit-house bearing No. 18/125 situated at Osmanabad. The petitioner mortgaged this property with possession in favour of the present respondent No. 1 by a registered mortgage-deed, dated the 15th April, 1970, for an amount of Rs. 1,200/-. The mortgages was to retain and enjoy the possession of the mortgaged property till the mortgage amount was repaid to the mortgagee-respondent No. 1. Possession of the house was accordingly given to the respondent No. 1 under the terms of the mortgage-deed. In 1973, the petitioner filed a regular civil suit for redemption and for possession of the suit-house. In Second Appeal No. 623/77 this Court on 14-9-1982 allowed the appeal and passed a decree for redemption in favour of the petitioner and for possession of the suit-house. The amount of mortgage is undisputedly deposited by the petitioner.

(2.) After obtaining this decree the petitioner filed Regular Darkhast No. 178/82 for possession of the suit-house. Respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Civil Application No. 2/83 presumably under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code contending that from 1-11-1972 the respondent No. 1 mortgagee introduced him as a tenant and that is why his possession is protected under Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, (hereinafter it is referred to as the "Hyderabad Rent Act"). On 5th January, 1983, the Decree-holder-petitioner gave an application in the trial Court for police help on the ground that while warrant was being executed obstruction was caused to the bailiff of the Court and therefore, police help should be granted. This application was Exh. 12 in the Darkhast. This application was fixed for hearing and after considering the rival contentions before him the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Osmanabad, rejected the application given by the petitioner-Decree-holder and this has given rise to this Civil Revision Application.

(3.) Mr. C.G. Solshe, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in (Sachalmal Parasram v. Mst. Ratanbai and others) A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 637. This ruling definitely supports the contention raised by Mr. Solshe. Therein the Supreme Court has observed as follows :---