( 1 ) THE respondents are decree-holders. They as owners of non-residential premises situate in the Civil Station, Bangalore, filed a petition for eviction in HRC 188 of 1969 in the. Court of the Prl Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, against 'm/s Jhamatmal Sons' under S. 21 Cl (1) sub-cl (h) of the karnataka Housa Rent Control Act, Alleging that the respondent to the petition above-said is a tenant under them. The eviction petition was contested by Devi Bai, the widow of Jhamatmal. Jhamatmal admittedly died in the year 1964. The HRC petition was filed on 11th April, 1969. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the firm she stated that they have been tenants since the year 1948, that they have been running business as photographers, that the said business is their only source of business, that jhamatmal Sons is a family business, it was set up in the year 1948 and that the firm has an established business in photography. The petition was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the landlords was also dismissed. Thereupon, the landlords filed a revision petition in CRP 2753/72 in this Court which was allowed on 17-8-1973 and eviction was ordered granting one year's time to the tenant to vacate. Thereafter, the decree-holders filed Execution No. 584/74 after the expiry of the period of one year In the execution proceeding, the judgment-debtor filed objections on 23-8-1974. It was filed by Devi Bai. She stated that the judgment-debtor jhamatmal Sons is a single proprietaryship firm, that it is not a registered firm, that the decree has been obtained against the firm without proper representation, that the sole proprietor of the firm 'jhamatmal Sons' died long prior to the institution of the eviction proceedings, that no proceedings could have been brought in the name of the firm in the absence of all the legal representatives being made parties to the eviction proceedings and that therefore the decree is void in law. She also filed another statement of objections on 28-8-1974 to the effect that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree of eviction in respect of a non-residential premises against the legal representatives after the death of the original tenant. The executing Court overruled the objections and directed the execution to proceed. The lower appellate Court has confirmed that order. Devi Bai has come up in second appeal. The appellant in this second appeal is described as 'm's Jhamatmal Sens, represented by Devi Bai".

( 2 ) THE only point urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal is that the sole proprietor of the film Jhamatmal Sons died in 1964 and since he was dead on the date of the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control act, the order of eviction passed against the firm is a nullity. The objection statement filed by the judgment-debtor in the executing Court is to the effect that all the legal representatives of the sole proprietor jhamatmal were not impleaded in the HRC proceedings and that therefore the order passed therein is void. It is contended by Mr. Narayanappa on behalf of the respondents that Devi Bai contested the eviction petition in the HRC proceedings in her capacity as the sole proprietrix of the firm, that therefore the firm M s Jhamatmal Sons was adequately represented in hrc proceedings and that it is therefore not open to her now to raise the contention in the execution proceeding that the order obtained against the firm is void. He has relied on the contents of the Vakalath filed by her in the HRC proceedings on 9-6-1969. In the body of the Vakalath she is described as the proprietor of the respondent-firm. Under the left thumb mark on the Vakalath, she is described as the "proprietor 'm s Jhamatmal sons'". Mr. Narayanappa also relied on the statement of DW. 1 in the hrc proceeding in the course of his evidence. DW. 1 was the only witness examined on behalf of the tenant in the HRC proceeding. He is one of the sons cf Jhamatmal. In cross-examination, he has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document