SUBHASH BADI, J, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH this matter was posted for orders, it was understood that the same would be heard for final disposal.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 23. 12. 2006 passed against the obstructer, rejecting the objection raised in the execution of the decree. Obstructer is the appellant.

( 3 ) THE appellant obstructer in telegraphic language has stated that, the decree holder had filed HRC No. 10501/90 and the decree holder and the judgment debtor in order to defraud the obstructer entered into lease agreement dated 11. 1. 1988 as per Ex. P. 5 produced in H. R. C. NO. 10501/90. On 22. 8. 1994 HRC 10501/90 was allowed with cost. The judgment debtor was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises. On 28. 9. 1994, HRRP no. 959/94 and HRRP No. 1251/1994 were filed by the obstructer against the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor and the said hrrps. were decided in his favour. Thereafter, on 20. 2. 2000, one siddanna, P. A. Holder promised the obstructer that he would give Rs. 10,00,000/- and the damage incurred by the obstructer and only then, the obstructer can hand over vacant possession. Since HRC 10501/ 90 was dismissed on 9. 2. 2000, his family relationship is ruined by the decree holder and her husband and the judgment debtor mother. On 19. 10. 2005, HRRP 269/2000 filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor and the obstructer was abated. Judgment debtor and the obstructer are not in talking terms for long time. There were several police complaints, original suit, partition notices and the obstructer is sending rents regularly to the decree holder from the beginning and including on 5/12/2006. On 21/11/2005, decree holder sent a notice to the judgment debtor. On 2. 12. 2005, judgment debtor sent a reply to the notice informing about the HRC 10501/90 and about several litigations. On 10. 1. 2006 rejoinder was sent by decree holder's advocate mentioning the schedule of the shop. On 13. 1. 2006, decree holder gave power of Attorney to her son. On 16. 1. 2006, s. C. No. 73/2006 was filed against the judgment debtor- (mother of the obstructer ). On 24/2/2006, defendant filed written statement. On 3/7/2006, documents were marked.

On 18/7/2006, PW. 1 was cross-examined. On 2/8/2006 with the permission PW. 1 was examined and cross-examined. Defendant filed affidavit. But, she could not come to court, as she was 80 years old and bed ridden. On 14/9/2006 advocate for defendant produced one lease agreement dated 1/1/1981 marked as R3. On 5/9/2006, certificate of posting of rent of Rs. 325/- was sent by the obstructer to the decree holder and the Trial Court without considering these materials, has passed the order.

( 4 ) THE objection of the obstructer was opposed by the decree holder, Decree holder's case is that, she had filed HRC 10501/90 under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The said HRC was allowed and against which, HRRP Nos. 959/94 and 1251/94 were filed. The said HRRPs were allowed and the matter was remanded. Though on 9. 2. 2000, HRC 10501/90 was dismissed, however held that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the decree holder and the judgment debtor. The HRC court also held that, the obstructer is none other than the son of the judgment debtor. In the HRC proceedings, the obstructer was made as a 2nd respondent. In the said proceedings, a point, as to the jural relationship between the decree holder and the judgment debtor was framed and the HRC court considering the evidence including the alleged lease deed alleged to have been executed by the landlord in favour of the obstructer which was marked as Ex. R3 held that, the decree holder and the judgment debtor are the landlord and tenant and the obstructer who was 2nd respondent in the said proceedings is the son assisting the mother. The HRC court also held that, the obstructer is not a subtenant, but he is the son of the main tenant. H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document