Vannamma and Others vs Zakirunnisa and Others

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Order of the executing Court dated 21.6.2014 passed in various execution petitions which are produced at Annexures-A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1, G1 and H1 are assailed in these writ petitions.

The facts germane to the case are that the petitioners who were the tenants of late one Mohammed Allauddin. They latter had filed eviction petitions against petitioners under Section 27(2)(r) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The trial Court by order dated 24.4.2009 dismissed those eviction petitions and declined to grant a decree of eviction. Being aggrieved by that order, late Mohammed Allauddin had filed HRRP Nos. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97 of 2010 before this Court. By order dated 7.12.2010, those eviction petitions as well as revisions petitions were allowed. The petitioners herein were ordered to be evicted from their respective premises and eighteen months time was granted to them to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. After lapse of the aforesaid time and after waiting for nearly two years thereafter, during which period the landlord died, his legal representatives filed execution petitions seeking execution of the order dated 7.12.2010 passed by this court. The petitioners herein, who were served in the execution petitions have engaged a counsel and sought time to file objections. The executing Court by the impugned order has stated that the petitioners had to vacate the premises within the period of eighteen months from 7.12.2010 as ordered by this court. Despite lapse of 3 years, the petitioners herein had not vacated the premises and therefore no lenience could be shown to them and accordingly ordered for issuance of delivery warrant with police help returnable by 26.7.2014 in all the execution petitions. Those orders are assailed in these writ petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his submission has drawn my attention to paragraphs 36 and 37 of the order of this Court dated 7.12.2010, which reads as follows;

"36. I am satisfied the evidence on record establishes that the petitioner requires the premises for own use and occupation and thus will be entitled to an order of eviction under clause (r) of sub section 2 of Sec. 27 of the Act. In the result, the petitions succeed. The order dated 24.4.2009 in HRC No. 608, 600, 603, 602, 604, 601, 599, 607, 605/2006 on the file of the learned XI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore are set aside.

Now coming to the question of grant of time, it is seen that Tenants are said to be financially weak and engaged in menial jobs. The learned counsel Mr. Poovaiah has pointed out to the fact that most of the respondents are in very poor condition and therefore, hardship that would result in taking possession would be very high. I am satisfied the respondents could be granted eighteen months time to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner-Landlord, subject to payment of the amount towards arrears of rent and current rent without default. Respondents shall file an affidavit in the Registry of this Court within three weeks from now undertaking to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner- Landlord, within the time granted by this Court and shall not induct any persons in the schedule premises."

The petitioners herein were granted eighteen months time from 7.12.2010 to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in their occupation, subject to payment of arrears of rent and current rent without fail. They have also filed affidavits before this court within three weeks from that date undertaking to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises and also not to induct any other person in the premises. From 7.10.2010, eighteen months lapsed on 7.4.2012. It is stated that in the interregnum the landlord died, his legal representatives have waited for two more years and thereafter they filed the execution petitions. The petitioners were served in those execution petitions. They had engaged the services of an advocate and the trial Court after recording the order of this court had proceeded to order for issuance of delivery warrant with police help returnable by 26.7.2014. When the petitioners had undertaken before this court to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in their occupation within a period of eighteen months from 7.10.2010, they cannot have any further objection to the direction before the executing court. It is because the petitioners did not comply with that direction, the legal representatives of the original tenant after waiting for nearly two years, have taken steps to execute the order. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners'' counsel that time was not granted to file objections, as the petitioners had no right to take any objection against the execution petitions filed by the respondents herein, when once they had given their unconditional undertaking to this court to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises in their occupation within a period of eighteen months from 7.10.2012.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for interference. The writ petitions are accordingly rejected.