The court emphasized the necessity of verifying actual possession and lawful tenancy to prevent misuse of eviction processes and fraudulent dispossession.

ORDER

Respondent No.1 had filed a case in H.R.C. No.10049/2013 for directing the respondent No.2 to handover vacant possession of the property shop No.1, Property No.352/649/75/1, Ward No.51, situated at Ramamurthy Nagar Main Road, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru measuring 9 X 12 feet.

2. The Jurisdictional Court allowed the petition, directing the respondent No.2 herein to hand over vacant possession of the schedule property. The respondent No.2 having not handed over vacant possession of the schedule property, the respondent No.1 filed Ex. No.15164/2014, and in the said execution proceedings, the respondent No.2 was placed ex-parte and delivery warrant was issued to take possession of the subject property by breaking open the lock with the help of the police. The respondent No.1 having filed a memo stating that she has taken possession of the schedule property, the execution case was closed.

3. The petitioner herein contending that she was dispossessed by virtue of the delivery warrant filed an application under Order 21 Rules 99 to 101 of CPC to recall the delivery warrant and put up her in possession of the schedule property. The Execution Court rejected the application, against which the present petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Execution Court is contrary to the evidence on record, which establishes that the petitioner was in possession of the subject property as a tenant under one Sri Venkataramanappa and she has been dispossessed illegally by executing the delivery warrant which was issued against respondent No.2. Hence he submits that the impugned order passed by the Execution Court is not sustainable in law.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner is claming to be a tenant under Sri V.Ashwath S/o Sri. Venkataramanappa who was permitted to retain 400 sq.feet and the petitioner was not in possession of the schedule property as tenant under the respondent No.1.

6. She further submits that the material on record clearly discloses that respondent No.2 was in possession of the subject property as tenant. Hence she submits that the impugned order passed by the Execution Court is perfectly legal and does not warrant interference.

7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The respondent No.2 having not vacated the schedule property, the respondent No.1 filed Execution Case for executing the order of eviction passed against the respondent No.2. In the said execution proceedings, the bailiff returned delivery warrant stating that the subject property was locked, and thereafter the delivery warrant was issued authorizing the bailiff to execute the order by breaking open the lock.

9. The petitioner contends that under the said delivery warrant, the petitioner was illegally dispossessed from the schedule property. The petitioner to substantiate her claim that she was in possession of the schedule property as tenant under one B.Ashwath has produced copies of the Electricity Bills, the order of temporary injunction passed in O.S No.5294/2012, the lease agreements dated 02.07.2007 and 01.01.2012 and also the communication issued by the Tahasildar dated 17.07.2014 and tax paid receipts in all 32 documents.

10. The Execution Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein for the following reasons:

21. "The above order sheets and orders reveals that, in MFA No.926/07, both parties i.e., legal representatives of Sri. Venkataramanappa and this decree holder Rukminiamma have amicably settled the matter an