IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 528 of 2009() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A.28/09 IN E.P.256/08 IN O.S.256/01 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF II, KOZHIKODE DATED 17/09/2009) .................... PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR/IST RESPONDENT IN E.A: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THANIMA PANCHAKA SAMBHARANA VITHARANA SANGHAM, REG.NO.D.2483 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA BHAVAN BUILDINGS, G.H.ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN, MR.P.A.HARISH. RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDERS/PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPT. IN EA: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.RATNA SINGH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KORUKUTTY, RESIDING AT RATNA NIVAS, KURIYAL LANE, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. K.P.TESSY, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.KORUKUTTY, RESIDING AT RATNA NIVAS, KURIYAL LANE, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. SOPHIYA, W/O.BHAGATH SINGH, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUSHUNKKAL HOUSE, THIRUTHIYAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. SHOBIKA, D/O.BHAGATH SINGH, AGED 11 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUSHUNKKAL HOUSE, THIRUTHIYAD KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN & MOTHER 3RD RESPONDENT) Kss ..2/- ...2..... CRP.NO.528/2009 5. GOPIKA, D/O.BHAGATH SINGH, AGED 8 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUSHUNKKAL HOUSE, THIRUTHIYAD KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN & MOTHER 3RD RESPONDENT) 6. K.P.SOBHANA, W/O.KORUKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT RATNA NIVAS, KURIYAL LANE, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. R1 BY ADV. MR.E.NARAYANAN (CAVEATOR) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009 ALONG WITH CRP.NO.531 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.2862/2009 IN CRP.NO.528/2009 DISMISSED 30/09/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.528 & 531 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Common petitioner in both these revisions suffered a decree of eviction with liability to pay damages for use and occupation past and future, in O.S.No.26 of 2001 on the file of the principal Munsiff Court II, Kozhikode. The decree passed in the above suit was confirmed in first and second appeals. Pursuant to passing of the decree in another proceedings the decree holders have lost proprietory title over the property from which the petitioner is sought to be evicted, was the objection canvassed to challenge the execution of the decree. The learned Principal Munsiff negatived the objections. An application moved by the decree holders for attachment of the movables belonging to the petitioner/judgment debtor was allowed by order dated 17.9.2009 in E.A.No.28 of 2009 in E.P.No.256 of 2009. That order is challenged in C.R.P.No.528 of 2009. The execution court has also ordered for delivery of the decree schedule building occupied by the judgment debtor by order dated 17.9.2009 in C.R.P.Nos.528 & 531 of 2009 2 E.P.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.256 of 2001. That order is challenged in C.R.P.No.531 of 2009. 2. Decree holders have filed a caveat, and notice given the caveator has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The decree was granted in the above suit upholding the case canvassed by the plaintiff/decree holder that the petitioner/judgment debtor occupied the building as a licence and it was revoked. That decree has become final and conclusive with the first and second appeals, both preferred by the judgment debtor, dismissed confirming the decision of the trial court. In another proceeding initiated by some other persons it has been found that the decree holders have no title over the property is the objection canvassed by the judgment debtor who was, admittedly, put in possession of the building and continue to have such occupation on the permission accorded by the decree holders. Once a licensee is revoked his possession becomes unlawful. The decree granted by the trial court for eviction is not liable to be affected in any manner by any decision rendered C.R.P.Nos.528 & 531 of 2009 3 against the decree holders at the instance of some other person. That cannot be canvassed by the licensee/judgment debtor to challenge the validity of the decree directing his eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the execution proceedings there is dispute as regarding the amount due under the decree and the dismissal of the revision may not cause prejudice to his right to canvass his case with respect to the deposits made and the amount due. I make it clear that none of the observations made in the order will have any bearing or reflection on the enquiry to be conducted by the court below with respect to the challenges over the amount due under the decree canvassed by the petitioner/judgment debtor. Subject to the above observations, revisions are dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-