PRATAP RAGHAVJI BHAGWAN VIRAJMAN MANDIR Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed on behalf of the applicant/ plaintiff/ decree holder against respondent/judgment debtor/defendant under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-2010 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Tikamgarh in MJC No. 4/2010. The same also appears to be filed against the order dated 21-10-2010 as stated in paras 8 and 9 of the revision memo whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondents under section 18(3) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for their re-entry in the newly constructed premises in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2007 passed by the District Judge Tikamgarh in Civil Regular Appeal No. 37-A/06 arising out of judgment and decree dated 31-7-2006 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I Tikamgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 29-A/06 has been allowed and pursuant to that to deliver the possession of the newly constructed premises to the respondents, a warrant of possession has been directed against the applicant herein.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the applicant herein on or about 20-9-1999 instituted a civil suit against the respondents for their eviction from the premises comprising two rooms of House No. 40 situated at Ward No. 80, Khasra No. 226/1, Rajmahal Road, Tikamgarh also described and marked in the map annexed with the plaint on the grounds enumerated under section 12(l)(a) and (h) of the Act. The same was contested on behalf of the respondents. After holding the trial on appreciation, the same was decreed by the trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 29-A/06 vide judgment dated 31-7-2006 for eviction on aforesaid both the grounds i.e. section 12(l)(a) and (h) of the Act. On challenging such decree by the respondents herein in the above-mentioned appeal, the same was allowed in part and by setting aside such decree in part till the extent of section 12(l)(a) of the Act, the same was affirmed on the ground under section 12(l)(h) of the Act with some terms and conditions in which the right of re-rentry to the respondents after making out the new construction of the premises was also included. It is noted that at the instance of the applicant herein, a second appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the appellate Court is pending in this Court as S.A.No. 1669/07 in which against the execution of said decree no stay has been granted as such stay application was withdrawn on behalf of the applicant herein vide dated 12-3-2010 in such appeal.

(3.) As per further case of the parties, subsequent to decision of the aforesaid first appellate Court, in compliance of the terms of the decree, the vacant possession of the disputed premises was handed over by the respondents to the applicant for making the new construction within the prescribed period, thereafter the respondents had carried-out the same. As per case of the respondents they have complied with all the terms of the decree passed on the ground under section 12(l)(h) and, therefore, in such premises, they are entitled to re-enter in the premises after its reconstruction. But the possession of the same was not being given to them by the applicant herein, on which, they filed the impugned application under section 18(3) of the Act with a prayer to make available them the vacant possession of the newly constructed shop from the applicant in compliance of the decree. The averment of such IA was disputed on behalf of the applicant/Trust by filing its reply, on which, after holding the preliminary inquiry, the aforesaid application of the respondents were allowed by the executing Court vide dated 21-10-2010. I would like to mention here that initially according to the reply of the applicant the requisite rent of the agreed period was not deposited by the respondents, therefore, they are not entitled for re-entry in the premises. But the executing Court vide order dated 21-10-2010, by holding that such entire rent has been deposited by the respondents and in such premises, the warrant of possession to make available the alleged shop to the respondents, has also been directed, on which, the applicant has come forward to this Court with this revision.