i •..1ii3 ‘arr i, 1 3 t 3 ) i 13 -In 4’ a P12 -‘y:’ s ..JflD_ .!.....:A’tTTAL2-.. rae’ At’2’ t .4et’s w: )i’anlrasae.Jfl. ge: ‘A na::, 3/0 Ldr.zp.s SqL, 3usne:s1trh, .Cirna .u:ar, ‘‘ ‘‘• ... titi rer (3 6y.DazSr..fo xi •.i& 1) Dnjar;and, r!aJor 8/0 rlanjari a$ Jam, iisinenc ‘ian, 1(10 .arsna Daz€ar, Bijaar, his 1 mer 0 Attox ay -‘ol a h char +niar al air. 2) It3manat ia’ r, • ‘cud_ )P 3agi, irdna .3azaar, 3iia r. 3) Xraps, ajar, S/o kr1ranc &q, ranan.3ozaur, 3 ‘it. 4) L! 0 a x, a o k-aix a atjrar3 Bazaar, ‘Zt. e•• Resnnants (3/ Sri ..L.’char a for -. :-. &hJalL. 4 ar —i.) a a a 3. ..‘Ie. 3. aa Qfl a t. r • .i.j Lit or e tc 4 21. tvi1 t ad;e Tr.Dn.,l va ..‘CaII, i3a r. This •%t. is ‘ ‘n 0 or 1 ta3ior this .la • a rj iioi k-C” 0 a 2 a ORD ER The Jtdgnent Debtor aggrieved by the order of the Ececiting Court ordering “issuing of delivery warrant”, has filed this revision petition. 2. The contention of the Jtdgrrent Debtor is that the order or decree passed in the eviction petition filed by the decree holder is not maintainable, . 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follmivs: The decree holder one Dongarchand Han jarimal Jam had filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner/julgment debtor and another in respect of the premises bearing CI’S Nos,7g0 & 791 situated at Bijanur on the ground that he required the premises for his mci use and occupation, This petition was rejected by the learned t4jnsiff, Agrrieved by the same, the decree holder/respondent no.1 herein preferred a Rent Revision before the learned Dist, Judge, learned Dist, Judge also had dismissed his Revision Petition against which a further revision was preferred to this C,urt — 3 ft had? ?Tos,4193 4199/33. This Dourt reversed t..e orde.rr: of the •learn di Diet, Judç.e and thefl 3npc1f ary3 orderd Rv 4 ction.. Agcrfeved by tOe same, oetiti oner/ oscinment oeotor neresn had filed a Sc.eciai leave Petition txa.f ore the don’bie Surjrei Court in ‘Nos. 13962 & 10963/97 which was dismissed on merits, !it the time t:Then the Specila leave ‘titins we.re d.i.sriissed p.resent petitioner prayed for time, to vacate 4 w:’uicn was scanasu till the end of dune ‘93 suoect to the coidition thst he should file an undertaking within 4 weelis in default. Evjct.icn order messed would become immediatel ezecutahle. Since the petitioner herein did not file tee underrakjno Cs er the directions f Court, resooodent no, lotecree holder sued out ezecution, Petitioner herein entered appearance and resisted the execet ion on rho oround that t. he en c.ti on order war nor executable; as according to him the eviction order obtained by Decree.., holder pertained to a part of premises Z.idS, iJos,7pa P 791, hut the latter is executing in respect cf the other part of rrecrdses which did not beionç. to him, The Elcecuting Court V 1 — 4 over—ruled thc said OOE?Cti sns and ordered issuance or oe1jverv warrant in execution of the order. :CCrivf by t he same, this revisi me petition is fiI he oni 2 contention made oj the Icarnea senior ccnnsel appearing for the peti.tioner Sri H 3 Dater is than the decree holder Resondent ns’,1 is not the excrusiVe owner of the entire premises No,79Q Sc 791 with reference to which he has s susht to execute toe order, 335. ownershir; extendeh onrv to the mert of i--’c, nr4cc So 4c nr “ “..-. U—..— rs5(ece in resect of the entire premises Ho, 79o Sc 791, Eiatoratinq his submissions, he that the ore mises hearins 753. 77 131 hercn consists re 3 in the rrnlnt and 3 rocras in the hind portion was jointly mu chased by respdt, 1 a longwith cne Ahba y Kurrar Shah, o5esusncr at a ssdt for ;rartition ie Litter and res wonhent. no, I herein c.:.rDis e decree was pass ad under i ch the first re srondent ‘l share has been lie marcated as a entire room and 35153 lrti easc 0 r s° .n° ortre-’ of the rune and a shoe in tee rnirddle, Pa further steps having been taken to physically reaa:ter in the absence of which the eviction order unnn)t oc euncu-Lel ml, n res ret of s nortion rnav 10 answer to Sf13 It was 5U051t55Q . \J A by the learned counsel for res or.dent the tint 0 & raises oy the anti sner is airsade ecnc ludbe against hit.. in t..h:e earlier proceedings, 6, be took —s trou—’ tee runeant ponions the eviction order nasses by this Court, Chs•cirounds of fuecial Leave Petiti on fi led before the Sunrenaa Court, the. ohjecticns, reoinde.rs. and the order of the Suprerre Court, 7, in order to -anoreciate the revial contentions the relevant portions of the flndingrs of the learned lst, Judge and this- Court and also the oleadin.es fef ore the funre•ue Court and order is extracted herein and referred to: (I —6— the of the urounci under which the learned Dissbri.ct Juige rejeot.ed be eviction jos.titon 05 res.aondent No I 1.5 as;: “In the abs.;e nsa of any division in the rpofjf.c J.JOrtion, the pe:..itioner cnenot o in ira the title and t:Lstat us of the lanfiors sa far ur a ‘at soruron is ancerned,” obs.erved This Coust has/in, the course i.ts order 4 %nc tilE. ab.ne finding as und.er: “Even though the revisional court Ions h. the fin.di.ng givsn by the tonal oss 4 rt aossrt toe eastaonr ovonng cecone the atoner .)4Z the oetit ion schedule nrernises, has not itse:lf c:onfus‘ad in cbservinç. thai the in so far as one roora situated on the easten side of the proioert y is ccncerneuci P Ct iti o.ner can be held, to be the iand lord and so far as the: otherroom. in occupat.ion of resnondent INTo. 1 is ccncerne.u, as csn not he he Id t o be the land lord of the anti re sbus, slnce half •arti on of that Scion w 5 •own acT by IW 4 3 in view •uf his ass lea ae:e.o., Tot revisionai. court oas not tasnen into cane iTINeration tue fact that the land l.nrd as well as.- the other co—owner be ‘ace as oned befase nsa cnrt ano have accented toe ownersoo and landlord— 5.:EyE p ad t he net it I one r in ree r,zct- nf the nti.ticJfl sc:hss:w;le rercises.”, Tens t is conan tona t’ nnanj if the mmcd IDf Striot Judge t hat res eon dent —I is t he owner of only half thea oorticn of the eresnises rand tI.se.refore not. entit led i’;o.r t.rvftti u.n was set —aside by this court.... (ads I —7— an.i a definite fin-iing has been given that respondent—i is the owner of the entire çatition schedule preiiises and therefrq entitled to seek for eviction. In the Special. [save Petition filed before the flon’ble Supreme Court, one of tie grounds raised therein is as follvs: “The dividing line in the division in the entire property is n* in existence. The first respondent has purchased the undivided portion of the C.T.S.No.790 ant 791. The first respondent sou$t the eviction of eastern half portion which is in possession of respondent ?!o.i and respondent No.2. The first resondent is a tenant of Abnay :‘nEr in occupation of the western shop and the room. It is singnificant to nte tnat in s far as the middle shop and :ne room are concerned it is owned by the first respondent as well as Abhay Xumar jointly having half s.-iare in each. That bein; the case in s, far as half portion ‘ner by Xohay <uinr tne respondent again claimed the ownership of t-ie said half rortion”. FkPu A ire Joinder was I .j led 1. .0 t. his, It has ei.s o to bei stoned tone toe Coacrooiire Dacrea; ronsrroo to or the 1.earn.ed ocruno.:e.l Sri. Hi, i3,.Datar was a.l.so as.sa.j led bel :)re the htora:ao Sotrt as a Sha0 trar 2 .sac’ti r 00 er I he :1 * .• .1 5 si S a S on :;•s JO I t doe r ore it has to be he Sd that he that has been OSflV:16 aeci ht 0109 this Court mrs S irma - and shed agaInst the j.o ltiolrWm:ibm: It is not onenf•or • Sca 0 nrj 50 (1 6 o- • nh 113 61e erse in Ic 55 the •oo ‘rae- tOlareCttJiOLll. on aecoume 00 it oeing a nullit” or being passed or a nosort with out Jurisdi chin on. 15000 t Oil -mis 10010 olt b too asoiti oner 030610. For the reasons stated above, there is no :rerit in this. :ostiti on, *oetitoo is ;iabia 00 0-3 rejected and is a900rtlnsEly rejected, on so 0O 5fl- 3 St colt • ad that S ta ts 0(00 ma be code red t o 0€ mainta ine.d. f :or a hen oh of 2 !5:fl:,<cr t Q Aceordi. no I 3’ i0 orh.er of Ehas Ott onçt Cs‘tot Petitjon rejectohi, 1-0 / brn/TS