Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The learned counsel sums up his arguments submitting that the suit for ejectment is incompetent and without the authority of law. The only course open to the plaintiffs on their purchasing the property during the pendency of the execution petition was to move an application for the continuation of the execution proceedings. Since the execution proceedings have been abandoned, the suit for ejectment is not maintainable.

23. Sri Suman, the learned counsel for the appellant in R.F.A.No.777/2009 submits that the suit for possession by the landlord filed beyond the period of 12 years is barred by limitation. The landlord's right may be subsisting but the remedy is lost. He submits that the abandonment of the Execution Petition No.353/1977 is binding on the plaintiffs also. The learned counsel submits that a separate suit was not maintainable on the first defendant resisting and obstructing the execution proceedings.

34. He submits that the orders passed by this Court in a number of writ petitions, filed by the appellants, are clearly indicative of the objections to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, adverse possession, res-judicata, etc.,

35. The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration.

36. The first question that falls for my consideration is whether there is any bar for the plaintiffs to file a suit for ejectment, as they have not continued or resumed the execution proceedings for enforcing the eviction decree granted in H.R.C.No.200/1975 as modified in C.R.P.No.1350/1976?

40. In the instant case, the question is not regarding the permissibility of the continuation/revival/resumption of the execution proceedings. The question is whether it was open to the plaintiffs to file a suit for ejectment, when their predecessor-in-title had obtained the eviction order but had abandoned the execution proceedings mid-way on his alienating the suit schedule property.

41. If the appellants' arguments are accepted, it would mean that the recovery of the possession has to be made only by getting the eviction order in HRC No.200/1975 executed. It is one thing to say that the new owner or successor-in-title has the option of reviving the execution proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation. But it is another thing to say that he cannot file a fresh suit and that too for a larger relief. It is always open to the party to take advantage of the change in the law. The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was brought in for replacing the K.R.C. Act, 1961. The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is enacted to balance the interests of both the landlord and the tenant. On the introduction of the said legislation, a landlord can always file the eviction petition, if the said Act has application for his case. If not so, he can file a suit for ejectment.