RAMAKRISHNA DEO Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN PUJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant instituted eviction proceeding under the provisions of the House Rent Control Act against the Respondent. This case was numbered as 1 of 1965. The case of the decree -holder -Appellant in that eviction case was that the Respondent was his tenant and he had fallen into arrears of house rent and secondly that he required the house bona fide for his own purpose. Ultimately some false defence was taken by the Respondent denying his landlord 's title, but that was found against and ultimately an order of eviction was passed.

(2.) THE decree -holder put that order of eviction into execution in E.P. 90 of 1967. In that proceeding the judgment -debtor filed an objection under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was that the estate containing the suit house of which the decree -holder was an intermediary had vested in the State on 29 -12 -1952. The effect of the vesting was that decree -holder has lost title. The House Rent Controller accordingly had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. The decree -holder objected to his plea and put in evidence the order passed under Section 6 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, dated 4 -8 -1964, which was marked as Ext. B. That apart, he also put in evidence the final Record -of -Right prepared in the last settlement of 1966 wherein the decree -holder 's name was recorded in respect of this suit house. Relying upon the provisions of Section 6, the executing Court held that the suit house must be deemed to have been settled with the decree -holder with effect from 29 -12 -1952, the date of vesting and accordingly over -ruled the objection.

(3.) IT appears from the order -sheet of the executing Court that with the receipt of the order of the lower Appellate Court, he has dismissed the execution case on 16 -11 -1970. In view of my decision that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is wrong and that of the trial Court is correct, the order dated 16 -11 -1970 must be set aside and the trial Court should proceed further with the execution proceeding.