Legal representatives are entitled to the benefit of the decree obtained by the deceased and could execute the Order of eviction obtained by the deceased.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the legal representatives of the decree-holder in h. r. c. No. 2022 of 1994 on the file of the learned small causes judge, bangalore. This revision petition is filed under Section 1. 15 of the cpc assailing the Order dated 18-3-2002 in execution case No. 273 of 1999 on the file of the learned additional small causes judge, bangalore dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioners.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

( 3 ) WHEN this revision petition had come up for admission on 1-7-2002, on finding prima facie, that the impugned Order cannot be sustained, I directed issue of emergent notice to the respondent so as to give an opportunity to the respondent and to dispose off the matter. Thereafter, the respondent has been served and the respondent is represented by Sri Sangvi, the learned counsel who fully supported the impugned Order and contended that even though the original landlady had secured an Order of eviction in the h. r. c. case, that Order was granted to her on a compromise between her and the respondent, and that too, in view of her requiring the petition schedule premises for her personal occupation. It is contended that since the decree was granted personally to the original landlady, the l. rs cannot execute the said order, which is personal to her. The learned counsel also contended that subsequently the respondent had received notice from a third party to the effect that the original landlady has willed away the suit property to that person and claiming rents from the respondent and the respondent has allegedly paid the rents to that person who issued her the notice. On all these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial court was justified in dismissing the execution petition.

( 4 ) IT is an admitted fact that the mother of the petitioners was owner of the petition schedule premises which is in possession of the respondent as a tenant. It is also admitted that the said landlady had filed an eviction case under the Karnataka rent control act, 1961 and there was an Order in the said h. r. c. case on 29-9-1995. During the pendency of the said h. r. c. case the respondent withdrew his objection and agreed to vacate the schedule premises, if time is granted to him to vacate till 31-12-1998. The court below on considering the materials on record and evidence adduced by the landlady, held that the landlady has proved that she requires the petition schedule premises for her own use and occupation and allowed the main petition. The following is the Order passed in the h. r. c. case:"in the result, main petition filed under Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and i. a. No. I filed under Order 23, rule 3 of the cpc is allowed. The respondent is granted time till 31-12-1998 to vacate and handover the schedule property to the petitioner. The respondent is directed to pay monthly rent at the rate of rs. 4,250/- to the petitioner regularly. If the respondent fails to pay monthly rent regularly as agreed in i. a. No. I the petitioner is entitled to execute the eviction decree to evict the respondent from the premises". the Order was passed in the h. r. c. case on 29-11-1995 and time was granted to the respondent to vacate upto 31-12-1998.

( 5 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the landlady died and the execution petition was filed by her sons. In the said execution proceeding, the respondent/judgment -debtor appeared and contended that the execution petitioners are not entitled for delivery of possession since they are not the decreeholders. The decree obtained by their mother was not executable because since that decree was granted personally to her. It was further contended that the late landlady had contended in the eviction case that she was staying with the family of her eldest son as a foreigner and that she intended to stay separately fro