SATYANARAYAN Vs. SINDHU BAI SHARMA
LAWS(APH)-1963-4-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 18,1963

SATYANARAYAN Appellant
VERSUS
SINDHU BAI SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The main point in this revision raises a short but difficult question. The central facts of the case are that one Sindhu Bai filed an eviction petition against her tenant who is the petitioner before me. On the basis of a compromise, eviction order was passed in favour of Sindhu Bai on 22-9-1959. Thereby the tenant was directed to vacate on or before the end of December 1959. I am to vacate on or before the end of December 1959. I an not concerned with the terms of the compromise. After the eviction order was passed and within almost a month the said Sindhu Bai sold the premises to Arun Naik, minor, through his mother guardian. Subhadra Bai, the respondent, on 12-10-1959. As the petitioner failed to vacate as agreed to by him in the compromise and as directed by the Rent Controller, the respondent filed an application for execution of the order of the Rent Controller on 26-6-1960. When the execution order was issued, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and took two days time to vacate voluntarily which was granted to him on 27-10-1960. Instead of thus vacating the premises the tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller raising various objections. The main objection was that the eviction order was passed in favour of Sindhu Bai and that the respondent who is the purchaser of the property from Sindhu Bai cannot execute the order of eviction as the decree was not transferred in his favour. The tenant also pleaded with the tenant on 16-9-1959 on account of which the respondent cannot execute the eviction order.
(2.) After hearing the parties the Rent Controller dismissed the executive petition holding that as the decree for eviction has not been transferred in favour of the respondent, he cannot execute the same although he is a transferee of the property which is the subject-matter of the decree. The respondent therefore went in appeal.
(3.) The appellate authority allowed the appeal. It was held that although Order 21, Rule 16 may not apply to the facts of the case by virtue of S. 146 C. P. C. the respondent who is the purchaser of the property from the decree-holder can file an execution petition. It is this view of the appellate authority which is assailed in this revision.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.