( 1 ) THE sole question which requires to be considered by this Full Bench is, as to whether once a person, other than the judgment-debtor, is dispossessed of an immoveable property by the holder of a decree for possession of such properties, having made an application to the executing Court against such dispossession based on his right, title or interest therein, can file a separate suit as well for the said very relief despite the prohibition contained in Order XXI, Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (in short the 'c. P. C. ')?

( 2 ) BEFORE entering into the controversy on the legal aspect let me first set out the bedrock of the settled facts. The petitioner in C. R. P. 3863 of 1991 is the owner of the double storied house property bearing No. 7, Thimmaraya Shetty Lane, Nagarathpet Cross, Bangalore-2. He had filed an eviction petition being H. R. C. 307/1982 under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'act') on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in respect of the 1st floor of the said house against one Krishna Murthy being the tenant therein. In the said proceedings an order of eviction was passed on 20-3-1982. Accordingly, he filed Ex. Case No. 2203/82 and obtained delivery of possession of the said first floor on 13-8-1982.

( 3 ) THE claim laid by the respondent in the said C. R. P. 3863/91, namely V. K. Ramasetty, is that he had acquired the possession of the first floor of the house in question pursuant to an oral agreement of tenancy entered into by him with the petitioner-landlord. Accordingly, he filed an application on 18-8-1982 under Order 21, Rule 99 read with Section 144, C. P. C. in the said execution proceedings seeking restitution of possession claiming that he was in possession of the suit premises in his own right as a tenant and he being not a party to the eviction petition, his dispossession was illegal and impermissible.

( 4 ) CURIOUSLY, after filing the said application under Order 21, Rule 99 of the C. P. C. , he also filed an Original Suit No. 2956/82 in the Court of IInd Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore for declaration that the order of eviction passed in H. R. C. 307/82 was null and void and not binding on him and therefore his dispossession pursuant to the said order was illegal. He also made consequential prayer for recovery of possession as also for permanent injunction against the landlord restraining him from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first floor of the said house. This suit came to be decreed by the learned City Civil Judge on 30-6-1990 wherein it was declared that he was a tenant in his own right in respect of the 1st floor as claimed by him and therefore was entitled for recovery of possession thereof.

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the said decree, the respondent filed Ex. Case No. 720 of 1990 on the file of the Civil Judge, wherein the landlord filed his objections stating that the premises cannot be redelivered pursuant to the decree passed in O. S. 2956/82 since it was inheriently without jurisdiction and therefore null, void and unenforceable. But the learned Civil Judge rejected the said objection and directed redelivery of the property under his order dt. 16-8-1991. The petitioner-owner being aggrieved by this order was preferred the present C. R. P. No. 3863/91.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT to passing of the said order, the Misc. Case 670/82 filed by the respondent under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code was taken up and on an insistence by the respondent it was heard and rejected on merits by the learned Small Causes Judge on the basis of the evidence adduced in the said Miscellaneous case. The respondent being aggrieved by the said dismissal order has preferred C. R. P. 254/92.

( 7 ) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing by the learned single Judge, as was obvious, one of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the landlord was regarding jurisdiction of the learned 2nd Addl. City Civil Judge in entertaining O. S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document