Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Vaniyankandy Bhaskaran vs Mooliyil Padinhjarekandy Sheela on 14 October, 2008

V.Balakrishnan vs R.Sai Kumari on 12 June, 2012

26. It could be seen from Ex.P3 that the Revision Petitioner (third party) was only a sub-tenant for management under the chief tenant viz., the Judgment Debtor in the E.P. Proceedings. It is a settled law that any order passed against the chief tenant would bind against the sub-tenant also. The eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller was not challenged and no stay has been granted by the Appellate Forum and it became final. It is already found that the Execution Proceedings taken against the Judgment Debtor will not be affected by any subsequent proceedings taken by the Revision Petitioner i.e., in O.S.No.6671 of 2009 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Even though the temporary injunction order was passed by the said court, after hearing both parties, it is clearly a subsequent proceedings and it would not over ride the Execution Proceedings, which was already filed and pending, as per the judgment reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1373 (SC) (Bhaskaran ..vs.. Sheela). Therefore, I could see that the courts below have categorically come to a correct conclusion that the Revision Petitioner has not established the jural relationship of tenant, but on the other hand, he was an obstructor / sub-tenant without any just cause and he was instigated by the Judgment Debtor and therefore, such obstruction has to be removed which are found to be in order. Therefore, I find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in confirming the order passed in the petition for removal of obstruction in favour of the Decree Holder and accordingly, I am inclined to dismiss the revision after confirming the orders passed by the courts below.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

B.Dhanam vs P.Usha Rani on 10 July, 2013

7.In the light of the above referred decisions, there is a duty cast upon the Executing Court to decide all questions and the purpose and object of introduction of the Rules is to decide such questions by the Executing Court itself and not by a separate suit. Having come to the conclusion that the Executing Court has got the power and jurisdiction to decide all questions raised by respondents 1 to 3 including the question regarding their right, title or interest in the suit property notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary and the object of the Rule being to avoid technical objections, the next question to be seen is whether the application filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 101 can be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.104 of 2006. To answer this question, this Court would place reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhaskaran Vs. Sheela ((2008) 17 SCC 1). The first respondent before the Honourable Supreme Court filed a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of a conveyance executed in her favour and the suit was decreed and the appeal preferred before the High Court was pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the rent control proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of default in payment of rent for the suit building along with the ground that the building is required for owner's occupation. The said rent control proceedings were dismissed on the ground that the title in relation to the building was in dispute in the suit. Ultimately, the rent control proceedings ended in favour of the petitioner therein and two months time was granted to pay the arrears of rent. Eviction was ordered and Execution Petition was filed for delivery of possession of the said premises. This petition was resisted and the Court ordered delivery with police help. To resist the order of eviction, a suit was filed for bare injunction and injunction was also granted from evicting the person. Ultimately, the matter came before the High Court and the High Court observed that the Trial Court has simply proceeded on the basis that the agreement in question was genuine and shifted the burden of proving the agreement to be a manufactured agreement by the respondent. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the execution proceedings commenced much prior to the filing of the suit for specific performance and the order under Rule 97 was passed by the Executing Court after the suit has been filed and therefore, it would be subject to the provisions of Rule 104 and would have to await the outcome of the suit for specific performance. The Honourable Supreme Court while answering the said question held that the suit for specific performance of contract was considerably later in point of time than the commencement of the execution proceedings and the provisions of Rule 104 of Order 21 of the code will not apply. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Radheshyam Jadav vs Sri Bisswajit Basu & Ors on 20 December, 2013

In consideration of the above facts and situation and the fact that, the Misc. Case No.37 of 2006 has already abated and no steps have been taken by the petitioner for setting aside the abatement and the decisions referred to above advanced by Mr. Gupta, I am of the view that after abatement of the Misc. Case No.37 of 2006, there is no bar at present to execute the decree for recovery of possession and other reliefs passed in the year 1968.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P Mandal - Full Document
1