KEDAR NATH Vs. BAHADURLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition and the proceedings out of which they arise are a gross abuse of the process of the Court to say the least. The petitioner is a sub -tenant in certain premises earlier held by one Sukhdayal as a tenant holding from the non -petitioner/landlords. The proceedings for ejectment of the petitioner and the tenant Sukhdayal were initiated before the Rent Controlling Authority which terminated successfully in favour of the non -petitioners by the Authority directing ejectment of the tenant and naturally the petitioner holding under the tenant. It is noteworthy that the proceedings had terminated on a compromise dated 10 -9 -1984 allowing the occupants two years time to vacate the premises.

(2.) HAVING fully availed of the time allowed under the compromise, the tenant and sub -tenant filed a civil suit challenging the compromise and seeking an injunction restraining execution of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Injunction was refused by the trial court as also the appellate court. They came up to this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Their petition was dismissed on 15 -11 -1991 by this Court overruling all the possible objections raised by the petitioners therein, (of whom one was the present revision -petitioer). See, Sukhdayal and another vs. State of M.P. and others (1992 1 M.P.J.R. 493).

(3.) THAT time having expired, the petitioners have once again initiated a fresh round of litigative process. Now they are canvassing at the stage of execution proceedings that the plaintiff/non -petitioners having constructed some shops available in their vacant possession, they have lost the right of executing the order of eviction which was based on their genuine need of the premises. The executing Court refused to go behind the decree. As against the order of the Rent Controlling Authority overruling their objections, first the petitioners filed a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution before this Court which was rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of revision. Then they filed a revision before the District Judge which was dismissed as incompetent, the order of the Rent Controlling Authority being challengable only before the High Court under Chapter III - A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Now they have filed the present revsion which is hopelessly barred by lime by 250 days. Not only this the revision is filed by sub -tenant kedarnath alone leaving out Sukhdayal, the tenant, from the array of the parties.