KANHUBHAI KOTOCHA Vs. MINAJUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment -debtor in Execution Case No. 10 of .1982 pending before the Munsif, Balasore, is the petitioner in this application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to challenge the order of the Court dated 13. 1. 1983 rejecting his application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant in the suit house situated in Balasore town and the opposite parties are the landlords in respect of the said premises. The opposite parties filed an application under the provisions of Orissa House Rent Control Act, H. R. C. Case No. 27 of 1979, for eviction of the petitioner. The said application was allowed by the House Rent Controller, Balasore, on 7. 1. 1982. The controller passed an order for eviction of the petitioner and directed the latter to put the landlords in possession or the house. Under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the order of the Controller made under Section 7 of the Act directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house, shall be deemed to be a decree and shall be executable as such in the Court of the Munsif within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the house is situated. As per the said prevision the opposite parties filed Execution Case No. 10 of 1982 on 26. 2.1982 for execution of the eviction order passed in the case On being noticed in the said case, the petitioner appeared and filed an objection to the executability of the decree mainly on the grounds :

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the execution petition is premature since the order has not yet been communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules. The impugned order records a concession by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of eviction was passed in presence of the lawyer for the petitioner. Section 13 of the Act which provides for appeal and Rule 13 of the Rules which prescribes the mode of service read as follows :