KULKARNI
RAMAKRISHNA AITHAL – Appellant
Versus
VARADAPPA – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the Judgment-debtor (Jdr.) against the order dated 11-1-984 passed by the ixth Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City in execution case No. 3656 of 1983 holding that the execution Petition is maintainable and that the Court has got jurisdiction to execute the decree.
( 2 ) THE Jdr. filed an eviction Petition in HRC Case No. 355/68 in the Court of the I Munsiff, bangalore City for recovering possession under Section 21 (1) (j ). It was dis-missed by the Trial court. Then the matter was taken up by the landlord to the District Judge in HRC Appeal No. 23/1974. The District Judge allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction under Section 21 (1) (j ). The tenant approached this Court in CRP 774 of 1976. In CRP 774/1976, they entered into a compromise. On 25-7-1980, a decree in terms of the compromise was ordered to be drawn up, by this Court.
( 3 ) AFTER the compromise decree was drawn up, the land-lord obtained a sanctioned plan. It is undisputed that he has put up a cellar and a row of four shops and a first floor on the said four shops after demolishing a portion of the building. It is undisputed that the landlord is still k
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.