Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 352 (KAR)

J. K. RAMA RAO v. INDIRA DEENADAYALU NAIDU

2003-04-10

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2003
SHYLENDRA KUMAR J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition filed under Section 46 (1) of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999 is directed against the order dated 17. 4. 2002 passed in Execution No. 10098/1999 by the XV Additional Small Cause judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (SCCH No. 19 ). The decree holder in the execution case has come up in revision complaining that the executing Court is in error in dismissing the execution case on the premise that nothing was required to be executed in respect of the order that was sought to be executed, that the Executing Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances under which the earlier orders had come to be passed, that though the material on record did indicate that the decree holder had in fact been put in possession of the portion of the property in dispute it was factually not so, that the decree holder who was a tenant and who had been made to yield possession to the landlord on the assurance that he will be put back in possession subsequent to the demolition and reconstruction of the building having not been factually put in possession of the premises as agreed to between the parties, the executing Court should have come to the rescue of the tenant who is not factually inducted to the premises from which he had been dispossessed, that the earlier statements and submissions that had been made on behalf of the tenant decree holder before the Court was one which had been made under duress and coercion and which are not correct and did not reflect the true position and as such the court below ought to have allowed the execution and directed the decree holder to be put in possession of the portion of the property to which he was entitled to as per the earlier orders. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhasker Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents at great length. Learned Counsel have taken me through the orders of the Court below and the records and other relevant material placed by them before the Court. ( 3 ) THE trial Court dismissed the execution petition as not tenable mainly being of the view that the order of this Court dated 30. 8. 1996 passed in HRRP No. 264/1993 and the order dated 18. 1. ( 3 ) THE trial Court dismissed the execution petition as not tenable mainly being of the view that the order of this Court dated 30. 8. 1996 passed in HRRP No. 264/1993 and the order dated 18. 1. 1999 passed in CCC 202/1998 prima facie indicated that the dispossessed tenant has been put back into possession of the portion of the property agreed to between the parties and the decree holder tenant having himself made statement to this effect before this Court, nothing remained for execution in the present execution case. It is in this view of the matter the execution case came to be dismissed as not tenable. ( 4 ) MR. Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the memo dated 4. 6. 1996 filed in HRRP/264/1993 was a memo which had been filed under the threat of duress and coercion whereby the tenant has stated that he accepted 700 Sq. ft. in the reconstructed premises and has been put in possession of the same from March, 1996 it is not the real or factual position and the same should be ignored for the purpose of considering the merits of the execution case 10098/99, that a memo of this nature was filed under the compulsion of the landlord who was also an advocate by profession and due to his coercion, that the landlord was in a dominating position and the memo filed under such circumstances is not binding on the tenant petitioner that the Supreme Court has held that the person who has fallen victim by forcing him to file such memo or statement before the Court contrary to the factual position should be granted relief in equity by ignoring much a memo and that the Executing Court had committed an illegality in not accepting the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner decree holder. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in this regard on the decision of the Supreme Court in GUJARAT STEEL TUBES ltd. , vs GUJARAJ STEEL TUBES MAJDOOR SABHA and in V. S. RAHI AND ANOTHER vs SMT. RAM CHAMBELI. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits with regard to the order of this Court in CCC No. 202/1998 that the observation made by the Division Bench. In the order dated 18. 1. , vs GUJARAJ STEEL TUBES MAJDOOR SABHA and in V. S. RAHI AND ANOTHER vs SMT. RAM CHAMBELI. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits with regard to the order of this Court in CCC No. 202/1998 that the observation made by the Division Bench. In the order dated 18. 1. 1999 to the following effect: If there is any error in that order or if there has been a wrong order, it is for the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance before an appropriate forum. We do not see any ground to initiate contempt proceedings give sufficient scope to the petitioner to raise this issue before the Executing Court and seek appropriate relief. ( 6 ) I am afraid the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not acceptable for this Court for more than one reason. The Executing Court could not have passed any order other than the order that it has passed as of now. The Executing Court was moved for the purpose of executing the compromise order that had been entered into between the parties by order dated 8. 9. 1989 passed in HRC 10649/1987. The Rent Control Court while allowing the petition filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (j) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, that is one for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction with a right of re-entry to the tenant had granted one years time to the tenant to vacate the premises so that the landlord can thereafter demolish the existing building rebuild it and put back the tenant into possession. As against this order the tenant had filed CRP/hrrp No. 264/1993. The present petitioner in this revision petition was one amongst the petitioner. The revision petition came to be disposed of as per order dated 1. 4. 1999 essentially confirming the order passed by the Court below but extending the time limit for completion of the construction work and granted further time for putting back the tenant in possession of the premises. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, subsequent to the disposal of the revision petition by this order, several applications came to be filed in this disposed revision petition, by the petitioner herein, one amongst them is IA no. 9 filed by the present petitioner which came to be ordered on 22. 9. 1995. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, subsequent to the disposal of the revision petition by this order, several applications came to be filed in this disposed revision petition, by the petitioner herein, one amongst them is IA no. 9 filed by the present petitioner which came to be ordered on 22. 9. 1995. By this order time for putting the petitioner into possession of the premises was extended up to 29th February 1996. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER a joint memo was filed by the present petitioner and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent landlord as per memo dated 24. 6. 1995 which reads as under: The petitioner-1 Sri J. K. Rama Rao, being the occupant of the major area, do hereby state that as per the Direction of this hon`ble Court, the Respondent Landlord has offered 700 square feet of built property in old No. 188, Consolidation New No. 185, brigade Road, Bangalore, which has been accepted by the petitioner and has been put in possession of the same with effect from 1st March, 1996. The petitioner 1 and the Respondent prays that this statement may kindly be recorded and the petition as far as claim of petitioner 1 is concerned may be disposed off in terms in the above, in the interest of justice and equity. ( 9 ) BASED on this memo filed by the petitioner this Court passed orders on 30th August, 1996 wherein this Court recorded the submissions of the Counsel and the contents of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner indicating that the petitioner has already been put in possession of that extent of the premises which had been agreed to be given to him as per mutual agreement of the landlord and the tenant. However in respect of the 3rd respondent it appears that the matter was not settled and it was directed to be looked into by the Executing Court. ( 10 ) IT is subsequent to the passing of this order dated 30th August, 1996 the present petitioner had come up with a contempt petition ccc No. 202/1998 complaining that there was disobedience of the order dated 22. 9. ( 10 ) IT is subsequent to the passing of this order dated 30th August, 1996 the present petitioner had come up with a contempt petition ccc No. 202/1998 complaining that there was disobedience of the order dated 22. 9. 1995 passed by this Court in HRRP 264/1993 ( 11 ) IT was in this context the Division Bench of this Court examined the complaint and found there was no substance in the complaint inasmuch as the complainant himself had submitted before the Court that he had already been put in possession of the premises and there was no further question of putting him again in possession and as such dismissed the petition. It was in the course of such order of dismissal the Division Bench of this Court observed that if there is any error in that order or if there has been a wrong order it was open to the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum. ( 12 ) I am afraid that the executing Court is definitely not the forum before whom the complainant/petitioner can seek such redressal of his grievance, assuming for arguments sake that he has any grievance for which he is seeking relief. The order passed by this court on 30th August, 1996 read with the order passed by the division Bench on 18th January, 1999 in CCC No. 202/1998 left no manner of doubt that the petitioner has already been put in possession and there was nothing that was required to be executed in so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned i. e, for putting the petitioner tenant into possession of the agreed extent of the premises. In the light of these orders there was no other go for the Executing court but to dismiss the execution case as not tenable. There is absolutely no error on illegality committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order. What is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that these very orders do not themselves reflect the correct factual position. Even assuming that to be so far the purpose of argument if it was required to examine the correctness or otherwise of this submission, the Executing Court definitely is not the forum before whom such question could have been raised. Even assuming that to be so far the purpose of argument if it was required to examine the correctness or otherwise of this submission, the Executing Court definitely is not the forum before whom such question could have been raised. The Executing Court has no competence at all to go into such questions. The execution case was totally misconceived for the purpose for which the execution case was levied as is evident from the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 13 ) THE present revision being against the correctness or otherwise of this order passed in the execution case has no merit at all. There is absolutely no scope for interference or modification of the order passed by the Executing Court by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 (1) of the Karnataka Rent act, 1999. The petition to say the least is most frivolous and I am of the view it is clear instance of the abuse of the process of the Court. ( 14 ) IN the circumstances I am inclined to dismiss the petition levying exemplary costs quantified at a sum of Rs. 5,000/- --- *** --- .