HARCHARAN SINGH KALDA Vs. SUNITRABAI VISHNUPANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6-1-1987 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.987 of 1985. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2-11-1985 passed by the VIth Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune in Misc. Application No.356 of 1981. That application was filed by the respondents.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that one Vishnupant Lachke was the owner of the suit premises which were business premises. He filed the Civil Suit for a decree of eviction against his tenant viz. respondent No.7 Arjun Singh. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 3-2-1969. In the appeal filed by the landlord against the order of the trial Court viz. Appeal No.284 of 1969, by the judgment dated 16-1-1970 the appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the landlord for a decree of eviction against the tenant Arjunsingh. It appears that, that order was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition. However, that writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter the respondents who are legal representatives of the original landlord Vishnupant tried to execute the decree. However, that execution was obstructed by the present petitioner Harcharan Singh who is the son of the original tenant Arjunsingh. Therefore, the present respondents - decree holders filed an application under Order 21 Rule - 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for removal of the obstruction. It is the case of the present petitioner who is the obstructionist that a licence of the suit premises was created by his father in the year 1969 after the suit filed by the landlord for a decree of eviction against his father was dismissed and according to him as he was a licensee of the suit premises on 1-2-1973 and because of the operation of the provisions of section 14(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, he has become a deemed tenant and, therefore, the decree of eviction passed against his father, the original tenant is not binding on him. The trial Court, however, found that no licence was created in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the trial Court removed the obstruction caused by the present petitioner and issued the warrant of possession. Against that order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court confirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal. In the present petition the orders passed by the subordinate courts in execution proceedings are challenged.

(3.) IN the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no orders as to costs.