NATHIBAI Vs. MAHESHWARI SAMAJ RAMOLA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Undaunted by unsuccess in the Execution Court, the revisionist revigorates her claim, in this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), of immunity from eviction in execution of the decree of Competent Court, procured under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), on the linchpin of deposit of all dues, as declared and decreed, in the Executing Court under the umbrella, deeming it protective in terms of Sections 13 (1) (5) (6) and 12 (3) of the Act, of the decisions of single Bench of this Court reported in 1988 Jab LJ 213 : 1987 MPRCJ 23 (Lachhobai Rathore v. Registered Shri Murti God Madan Mohan Maharaj) 1990 Jab LJ 434, (Phoolchand Jain v. Chhotelal) and 1994 Jab LJ 174 (Bhagwandas Pawaiya v. Regd. Firm Kailash Narain and Bros.) and refuses to be dissented from the decretal accommodation.

(2.) Brief narrative of fasciculus of facts is that the non-applicant obtained the decree against Kanhaiyalal (since dead), husband of the applicant for eviction and recovery of rent/mesne profits from 1-1-1972 at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month in Civil Suit No. 198/A/75 from the Court of III Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam on 4-5-1976 under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 23-8-1977 and attained finality thereafter as no Second Appeal was preferred. Execution was levied on 3-11-1982 for warrant of possession and recovery of dues quantified at Rs. 885/25 Ps. Notice under O. XXI, R. 22 of the Code was issued. The applicant as objector offered oppugnation on 27-2-1984. Application was filed on 23-6-1995 stating that all dues from 1-1-1972 to 31-12-1995 (Twenty four years), amounting to Rs. 1,728/- together with execution costs of Rs. 105/- (total Rs. 1,833/-) have been deposited in the Executing Court and as such no eviction can be ordered and no warrant, as claimed, can be issued. The objections were, however, dismissed and order to issue warrant of possession was passed on 14-8-1995. This order is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) The matter was being heard by the single Bench. Further proceedings were put under 'eclipse' by order dated 24-8-1995. On 4-1-1996, learned single Judge felt that this matter should be heard by a larger Bench and thus resorted to R. 9 (1) of Chapter-I of High Court Rules. Hon'ble the Chief Justice then on 14-2-1996 ordered placement of this case before Regular Division Bench.