B KAMALA DEVI Vs. RAMACHANDRIGEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether a person claiming to be in possession of a property as a protected tenant and dispossessed in execution of a decree, could invoke Order 21, Rule 100 C.P.C. and whether the court could direct restoration of possession to such a person.

(2.) The facts leading to this litigation are in order as follows: A protected tenancy certificate was issued to dents 1 and 2 in or about the year 1952. It is anegeu on their behalf that they had been in possession of the property both before and after the issue of the certencare. The pattadar sold the hording on 23-10-1960 for an aneged consideration of Rs. 8,000.00 to the petitioner. On the basis of the sale, an action Was raised by the petitioner on 31-3-1961. On receipt of summons, the venaor appeared in Court and submitted to a decree and it was passed on 19-4-1361. It appears that execution was not men out immediately for the reason that the crops raised by the respondents were on the land and these crops were harvested only sometime in June 1961. Execution was levied in June 1961 and a report was sent by tne palliff out 20-6-1961 that delivery was effected. It is the case or respondents 1 and 2 that they had no notice of the alleged delivery and that they came to know of it only a few days thereafter when they went to the fields to cultivate the lands. Subsequently, seeing the real position, tney filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 100 C.P.C. in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(3.) The First Additional juage, City Civil court, directed the claimants (respondents 1 and 2) to be restored to possession as on enquiry he found that they were in possession ot this properly when the direction for Dispossession was given by the court. It is this order that forms me subject-matter of the present revision.