AMINA ANJUM Vs. MOHD ISHAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is the tenant of premises owned by the petitioner. The petitioner filed OS No. 3787 of 2002 in the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent, for eviction and vacant possession of the premises. The suit was decreed on 31.12.2004 by the trial Court. Challenging the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent filed AS No. 102 of 2005 in the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 18.1.2007. The decree passed by the lower appellate Court was confirmed by this Court in SA No. 313 of 2007 on 20.7.2007. However, the respondent was granted six months time to vacate the premises, subject to his filing an undertaking to the effect that he would put the petitioner in vacant possession of the premises, within six months, and that he would pay the rents regularly. The respondent filed SLP, Civil Appeal Nos. 3469-3470 of 2010 feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the second appeal. The Supreme Court granted stay of eviction of the respondent.

(2.) However, the petitioner filed IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 in the civil appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating, inter alia, that the respondent has violated the undertaking furnished in compliance with the orders of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order dated 26.7.2010 directing that it shall be open to the executing Court to verify whether the respondent had failed to comply with the undertaking and if it is found that the undertaking has been flouted, it shall open to it to evict the respondent.

(3.) Ep No. 171 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was taken up by the executing Court. The plea of the petitioner was that the respondent did not pay the rents, as directed by this Court and undertaken by him. The plea of the respondent was that he deposited the amount through challans, but there was delay in filing of the challans into the Court. Through its order, dated 15.3.2011, the executing Court dismissed the E.P. observing that there was no violation of undertaking on the part of the respondent. Hence, this revision.