The continuation of the execution proceedings on the application filed by the decree-holder would not result in the deprivation of any right of the judgment-debtors, as the decree of the trial court was affirmed without affecting the terms of the decree in any manner whatsoever.

A. J. SADASHIVA, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed for orders, by consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 1. The petitioners in this revision petition are the legal represents tives of the judgment-debtor in execution application No. 134 of 1991 on the file of the learned munsiff, k. g. f. they have assailed the order dated 24-4-1993 passed by the learned munsiff, k. g. f. in execution case No. 134/91 overruling their objections and ordering issue of delivery warrant in respect of the execution schedule property.

( 2 ) THAT, for the sake of convenience, the parties hereto arc referred to with reference to their position in the execution application. The petitioners are the judgment-debtors and the respondent is the decree-holder,

( 3 ) THE question in controversy in this petition is" whether a decree-holder, whose application in execution of his decree has been pending, during the pendency of the civil revision petition on account of stay of decree by this court in revision, can continue execution proceedings on that application, after the dismissal of the judgment-debtor's revision?"in order to resolve the aforesaid controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts of this case, which are as follows: that the decree-holder is the landlord and the judgment-debtors are the legal representatives of the tenant. The decree-holder had filed an eviction petition in h. r. c No. 41/78, on the file of the learned munsiff, k. g. f. against the tenant one devaraj, the husband of the first judgment-debtor under Section 21 (l) (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (for short 'the act' ). The said petition came to be allowed under Section 21 (lxa) of the act only. The prayer under Section 21 (l) (h) of the act was refused. Being aggrieved by the said Order, both the landlord and the tenant have filed separate revisions before the learned district judge, kolar, who after hearing the parties confirmed the order passed by the learned munsiff. The tenant being aggrieved by the said order filed a revision petition in c. r. p. No. 3117/92. The decree-holder also preferred a revision petition in c. r. p. No. 391/92. By order dated 27-1-1992, both the revision petitions were dismissed by this court, affirming the orders of the court below. However this court granted time to the tenant, till the end of October 1992, to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the decree-holder. While dismissing c. r. p. No. 391/92, it appears this court, passed an order confirming the order of the learned district judge dismissing the petition under Section 21 (l) (a) and (h) of the act. This order came to be modified on the application filed by the decree-holder. The said order reads as follows:"c. R. P. No. 391 of 1992 was by the landlord against the refusal to make a decree for eviction under Section 21 (l) (h) only. Hence reference to Section 21 (l) (a) was uncalled for and was a mistake. The sentence 'no ground is made out under Section 21 (l) (a) also' has to be deleted from my earlier order. Same shall be deleted. It is so ordered. "it is admitted by the parties that the learned district judge, kolar, while dismissing revision petitions, did not allow any time to the tenant for vacating the premises. The decree-holder immediately after obtaining the certified copy of the Order, filed an application for execution of the decree in ex. no. 134/91 on the file of the learned munsiff, k. g. f. after registration of execution, it appears the tenant filed a revision in c. r. p. No. 3117/92 before this court and obtained an order of stay of the order of eviction passed by the courts below and an account of order of stay, the execution application was also not proceeded with. That after the disposal of revision petitions, by this court, it appears the tenant died and the judgment-debtors were brought on record, in execution case No. 134/91 and after the expiry of the time granted by this court, execution cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document