LAWS(ORI)-2001-10-24

MAHINDER SINGH Vs. PRATIMA KUMARI MOHAPATRA

Decided On October 18, 2001
MAHINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
PRATIMA KUMARI MOHAPATRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by a third party intervenor in an Execution case challenging the order/judgment dated September 21, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court, Cuttack, in Civil Revision No. 88 of 1999. The said civil revision arose out of an order dated October 13, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Cuttack in Execution Case No. 11 of 1996.

(2.) Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the case are as follows : One Mahavir Prasad Halan, claiming to be the landlord filed HRC Case No. 19 of 1970 under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 in the Court of the House Rent Controller, Cuttack against the tenant one Laxman Patnaik praying for his eviction from the premises appertaining to Holding No. 539 situated in Ward No. 25 of Cuttack Municipality. The learned House Rent Controller by his judgment dated May 11, 1976 categorically arrived at a conclusion that the tenant was a willful defaulter and has sublet a portion of the house to a sub-lessee Madan Singh and had conducted himself against the interest of the landlord by subsequently denying his title to a part of the land premises and that the landlord needed the premises for his bona fide personal occupational use. The said order of eviction was challenged in HRC Appeal No. 18 of 1976. By judgment dated January 3, 1977 the appellate authority confirmed the finding of the learned House Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The tenant thereafter filed O.J.C. No. 36 of 1977 in this Court, vide Judgment dated January 15,1979, this Court set-aside the judgment passed in appeal and remitted back the matter to the appellate authority with a direction for fresh disposal of the appeal after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence only with regard to the matter of subletting and after making local inspection for appreciating the evidence on record.