Decided on January 17,1973

Laxmi Narayan Pujari Respondents


S.K.Ray, J. - (1.) THE Appellant instituted eviction proceeding under the provisions of the House Rent Control Act against the Respondent. This case was numbered as 1 of 1965. The case of the decree -holder -Appellant in that eviction case was that the Respondent was his tenant and he had fallen into arrears of house rent and secondly that he required the house bona fide for his own purpose. Ultimately some false defence was taken by the Respondent denying his landlord 's title, but that was found against and ultimately an order of eviction was passed.
(2.) THE decree -holder put that order of eviction into execution in E.P. 90 of 1967. In that proceeding the judgment -debtor filed an objection under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was that the estate containing the suit house of which the decree -holder was an intermediary had vested in the State on 29 -12 -1952. The effect of the vesting was that decree -holder has lost title. The House Rent Controller accordingly had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. The decree -holder objected to his plea and put in evidence the order passed under Section 6 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, dated 4 -8 -1964, which was marked as Ext. B. That apart, he also put in evidence the final Record -of -Right prepared in the last settlement of 1966 wherein the decree -holder 's name was recorded in respect of this suit house. Relying upon the provisions of Section 6, the executing Court held that the suit house must be deemed to have been settled with the decree -holder with effect from 29 -12 -1952, the date of vesting and accordingly over -ruled the objection. The judgment -debtor came in appeal before the District Judge, who held that the settlement shall be deemed to take effect from 4 -8 -1964 when order under Section 6 was actually passed by the Estate Abolition Authority. This view is clearly erroneous. With effect from the date of vesting all homesteads comprised in an estate and being in possession of an intermediary on the date of such vesting shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such Intermediary and with all the share -holders owing the estate, who shall be entitled to remain possession of such homesteads and of such buildings or structures together with the lands on which they stand, as tenants under the State Government subject to the payment of such fair and equitable ground -rent as may be determined by the Collector in the prescribed manner. According to Section 5 of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, on the publication of notification under Section 3(2) of that Act, the entire estate vests subject to Section 6 extracted above. The provisions are quite clear. Vesting and flowing of consequences take place almost simultaneously, though under the fiction of law indicated therein the State acquires title to the entire estate and immediately thereafter resettles such lands with the intermediary which arc deemed to have been settled with him under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Such settlement takes place automatically and is not postponed till after the enquiry of the Estates Abolition Collector is completed. All settlements found subsequently by such Collector to have taken place must operate with effect from date of vesting as indicated in Section 6 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that the opinion of the executing Court on the position of law was quite correct. The title to the suit house must be taken to have vested with the decree -holder with effect from 29 -12 -1952. The decision of the lower Appellate Court, is therefore wrong and is hereby set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.
(3.) IT appears from the order -sheet of the executing Court that with the receipt of the order of the lower Appellate Court, he has dismissed the execution case on 16 -11 -1970. In view of my decision that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is wrong and that of the trial Court is correct, the order dated 16 -11 -1970 must be set aside and the trial Court should proceed further with the execution proceeding.;

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