MADANLAL JOSHI Vs. MADANLAL CHHAPOLIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment -debtor 's appeal under Section 47 , Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant facts are as follows:

(2.) RESPONDENTS are admittedly the owners and landlords of Municipal Holding Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of Ward No. XI in Cuttack Municipality. They filed an application under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) against 7 persons alleging that opposite parties 1 to 3 in that application were the tenants and opposite parties 4 to 7 were sub -tenants in respect of specified portion: of the house inducted by opposite parties 1 to 3 without written consent of the landlords. Before the House Rent Controller (hereinafter called the Controller) only the tenants (opposite parties 1 to 3) contested alleging that they were not liable to be evicted and that they had indicted opposite parties 4 to 7 as sub -tenants with the consent of the landlords. In House Rent Control Cases Nos. 28 of 1959 and 46 of 1960, the Controller held that opposite parties 1 to 4 and 6 were not liable to be evicted. Orders for eviction were passed against opposite parties 5 and 7 as one of the tenants admitted that he had no knowledge if they were inducted as sub -tenants. Against the order of the Controller the landlords filed an appeal (House Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 1961) which was dismissed. A Writ application to the High Court and an appeal against that order of the High Court to the Supreme Court by the landlords failed. The order of the Controller refusing to evict the tenants became final and conclusive against the landlords. The landlords have categorically asserted that the, tenants have been inducted in respect of the entire building for a monthly rent of Rs. 340/ -.

(3.) THE landlords filed an application in the Court of the First Munsif, Cuttack, for execution of the order of the Controller as a decree. The judgment -debtor -Appellant took objection to the executability of the decree under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the order of the Controller was without jurisdiction as it was passed against him on the footing that he was a trespasser. This contention was accepted by the learned Munsif. The landlords filed an appeal before the District Judge and the learned Judge allowed the appeal holding that the order for eviction passed by the Controller against the Appellant was on the footing that he was a sub -tenant and not a trespasser. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Judge. Mr. Pal raised the following contentions: